Subject: Re: ?WHAT TAXES HAS CLINTON RAISED?
From: taxservice@aol.com
Date: 11 Nov 1996 20:23:21 GMT
In article <32877271.2583@atl.mindspring.com>, "David G. Hughey"
writes:
>taxservice@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <32874389.1C41@atl.mindspring.com>, "David G. Hughey"
>> writes:
>>
>> >taxservice@aol.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <565lto$7c@paperboy.ids.net>, zarlenga@conan.ids.net
>> (Michael
>> >> Zarlenga) writes:
>> >>
>> >> >When *I* retire, all the hundreds of thousands of dollars that were
>> >> >taken from my paychecks over the years will have been spent on
OTHER
>> >> >PEOPLE. There will be NOTHING left when MY TURN comes. Either
that
>> >> >or someone ELSE will have to be screwed (Gen X) to pay for *MY*
>> >> >retirement.
>> >>
>> >> You must be doing damned well if hundreds of thousands of dollars
are
>> >> taken from your paychecks. Very few people make that kind of money
in
>> a
>> >> lifetime let alone having it withheld from their paychecks. Little
>> kids
>> >> almost always cry when they think other little kids are getting a
>> bigger
>> >> piece of the pie than they themselves got. The pie can be cut
evenly
>> to
>> >> the nth degree. The children will continue to swear that the other
>> little
>> >> kid got a little more than he/she did! Greed, envy, jealousy,
hatred
>> and
>> >> other emotions are are all motivators. These are the tools of the
>> >> propagandists on the right. Your only fear, Z, is fear itself!!
>> >
>> >They are the tools of the propagandists on the left as well. These
>> >GOPers, why, they aren't even human. All they want to do is keep the
>> >money they earned, even if it means that little children and old
people
>> >and sick people and people of color and criminals and women and
everyone
>> >except rich white males starve to death. Repeat, ad nauseum, until
the
>> >"teeming masses" are whipped into a snarling frenzy.
>> >
>> >And you accuse the GOP of propagandizing the issues? Take a look at
>> >your own rhetoric.
>>
>> You've made my case. Methinks you add to the *frenzy*!! Your obvious
>> contempt is apparent!!
>
>Good. My message then was clear.
>
>>You sound like one of those down home republican
>> racists
>
>Then your ears need checking, as I made no statement indicating my
>belief of the superiority of one race over another. Not that that has
>anything to do with this discussion, but in fact I do not believe in the
>inherent superiority of one race over another. "Racist" is a good
>buzz-word to apply to people who don't agree with you and you use it
>without thinking, which is a shame. Oh well, on to the remainder.
>
>>as well as one of those rich white males (your words) who find no
>> room for the children, old people, sick people and people of color and
>> criminals and women and everyone else from whom you suck resources and
>> their very life's blood to provide for your thirst for more and more of
>> what, in the end, will mean zilch to you.
>
>My goodness. You're almost frothing at the mouth, aren't you, at the
>sound of your own goodness and zealotry. First off, you're two-thirds
>correct; I am white and I am a male. I most certainly am not rich,
>although I would like to be. And despite the rhetoric you toss around
>so casually (life's blood), I do not employ the labors or intellect of
>anyone else, much less exploit them. So - that rhetoric has been
>neutralized. And as far as items that will mean "zilch" in the end - in
>the long run, all things are meaningless. Your point?
>
>>You sound like the kind who
>> would like to chew up and spit out anything that has naught to do with
>> anything but your self serving needs. That's not what life in a
civilized
>> society is all about. Why don't you take a sabatical and come out of
your
>> jungle for awhile??
>
>Man has self-serving needs. I have mine; you have yours; all God's
>chillun has needs. I take care of mine; you take care of yours; all
>God's chilluns should take care of their needs. And if they can't?
>Why, I donate considerable sums of money to various charities that can
>assist them in these endeavors.
>
>You are so self-assured in your own righteousness that you see
>absolutely nothing wrong in forcing people to give up what they have
>earned and give it to others for no reason whatsoever except that you
>have determined that they "need" it. And why not? It's not my
>property; I only have it because I was "lucky". You are the one that
>needs to come in from the jungle.
>
>You truly don't see anything wrong with a system that pays people to be
>losers? You don't see anything wrong with a system that rewards people
>to do nothing and be nothing (this applies to farmers and corporations
>as well)? That, sir, is what I reserve my contempt for. The system and
>the people who actually encourage it to continue.
>
>
>
David, I enjoyed your autobiograpy and have reviewed your opinions!!
Thank you for your efforts!! Keep up the good work and don't pout so!!!
Talk about losers - you're the one that brought that subject up. You
condemn the losers while in the same breath *cry* because you say you are
the loser!!
You are the loser, talking about losers of a different class, a class that
is open for you to enter. You have a better chance of getting there
without social programs than you do with them. The programs are set up as
much to serve the needy as they are to serve the greedy. Unfortunately,
the greedy always seem to be the greatest benefactors! They cry, cry, cry
about being the losers and having to pay for what is returned to them over
and over again!! They just can never get their greedy hands on enough,
ever!!! I'm sorry if I misread your initial message. I don't know why
but, at the time, I thought you were going to come back and tell me you
were black and that your parents had been on welfare all their lives.
So continue to speak for yourself!! and "Will the real loser please
stand up??"
By the way I'm not *frothing* at the mouth. I sit here laughing, enjoying
every minute. I enjoy the attempts of those who make excuses for
conservative movements that do nothing but work towards suppression,
oppression, repression, regression. Republican conservatives enjoy their
attempts to lead the masses on the road to hell!! As they do it, they
fail to tell those whom they propagandize that they know the road to hell
but they are unable to show the way back!!!
That's why I encourage Joey, L-Quest, you, and others to find that way!
You're survival depends on it!!! Join the liberal movement! You'll be
glad you did!!!
And keep posting, you serve the cause well!! I've informed Rushing
Limbowels of your good efforts!! Perhaps some of his goose steppers will
congratulate you for your efforts!!!
"Jack"
John H. Fisher - TaxService@aol.com
Philadelphia, Pa. - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!!
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 23:02:24 GMT
ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) wrote for all to see:
>Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
>
>: > Maybe things will get better in the future, as you say. But things
>: > will have to get _much_ better before the price of fish falls to, say,
>: > its 1935 level. Back then, fish was two and a half times cheaper than
>: > it is today, relative to the CPI. Even since 1970, the price of fish
>: > has gone up 40% faster than overall inflation. "We're running out
>: > of fish" doesn't seem like such a bad summary to me.
>
>: Ah, the price of _what_ fish, where?
>: Are you comparing sardines in the Bay
>: Area or salmon in London?
>
>These figures are from the Consumer Price Index, so it's the price
>of fish in supermarkets in US metro areas. It's a weighted average
>of all types of fish, and includes products like canned tuna.
>
>Also, I could have been clearer about how I calculated these figures.
>From 1970-1995, overall inflation was 393%, while the price of fish
>rose 548%. I quoted 548/393 = 1.4, or a 40% higher relative price.
You might look at the season's Alaskan Salmon. There is so much some
fisherman are dumping it at the docks, since the price they are
getting won't support their families, due to the market glut.
It's so cheap partly due to salmon farming, BTW.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
-------
"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
-----Aneurin Bevan (1962).
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:21:13 -1000
John McCarthy wrote:
->
-> Scott Susin includes:
->
-> Maybe things will get better in the future, as you say. But
-> things will have to get _much_ better before the price of
-> fish falls to, say, its 1935 level. Back then, fish was two
-> and a half times cheaper than it is today, relative to the
-> CPI. Even since 1970, the price of fish has gone up 40%
-> faster than overall inflation. "We're running out of fish"
-> doesn't seem like such a bad summary to me.
->
-> 1. "We're running out of fish" suggests that the absolute catch is
-> declining. It isn't. You can give it a different interpretation if
-> you like, but you will mislead people unless you include the
-> interpretation every time you make the statement.
Well John, if there is anyone who is an expert on misleading
people, it's you.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Fishery Declines of more than 100,000 tons, Peak year to l992
Species Peak | Peak | 1992
Year | Catch | Catch | Decline | Change
|(. . . million tons . . )|(percent)
Pacific herring 1964 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.5 | -71
Atlantic herring 1966 | 4.1 | 1.5 | 2.6 | -63
Atlantic cod 1968 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 2.7 | -69
Southern African pilchard 1968 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 1.6 | -94
Haddock 1969 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 | -80
Peruvian anchovy* 1970 | 13.1 | 5.5 | 7.6 | -58
Polar cod 1971 | 0.35 | 0.02 | 0.33 | -94
Cape hake 1972 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.9 | -82
Silver hoke 1973 | 0.43 | 0.05 | 0.38 | -88
Greater yellow croaker 1974 | 0.20 | 0.04 | 0.16 | -80
Atlantic redfish 1976 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | -57
Cape horse mackerel 1977 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 | -43
Chub mackerel 1978 | 3.4 | 0.9 | 2.5 | -74
Blue whiting 1980 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.6 | -55
South American pilchard 1985 | 6.5 | 3.1 | 3.4 | -52
Alaska pollock 1986 | 6.8 | 5.0 | 1.8 | -26
North Pacific hake 1987 | 0.30 | 0.06 | 0.24 | -80
Japanese pilchard 1988 | 5.4 | 2.5 | 2.9 | -54
TOTALS: | 51.48 | 21.77 | 29.71 | -58
Source FAO.
* The catch of the Peruvian anchovy hit a low of 94,000 tons
in 1994, less than one percent of the 1970 level, before
climbing up to the 1992 level.
From NET LOSS, p.p. 14-15, 1994. (Worldwatch Paper # 120)
Worldwatch Institute, 1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20036 , Tel: 202/452-1999
Fax: 202/296-7365, E-mail: wwpub@igc.apc.org
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:40:19 -1000
John McCarthy wrote:
> Only a few of the minerals mentioned had price hikes. The five
> involved in the Ehrlich-Simon 1980-1990 bet all had price decreases.
>
> The _Limits to Growth_ model was nonsense, and experience verified what
> analysis had shown.
Paul Ehrlich was not part of the Limits to Growth team.
This is what the book was about:
===============================================================
ENVIRONMENTAL AND
NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS (third edition),
by Tom Tietenberg; Harper Collins, 1992; ISBN 0-673-46328-1.
THE BASIC PESSIMIST MODEL
One end of the spectrum is defined by an ambitious study
published in 1972 under the title The Limits to Growth. Based on
a technique known as systems dynamics, developed by Professor Jay
Forrester at MIT, a large-scale computer model was constructed to
simulate likely future outcomes of the worldeconomy. The most
prominent feature of systems dynamics is the use of feedback
loops to explain behavior. The feedback loop is a closed path
that connects an action to its effect on the surrounding
conditions which, in turn, can influence furtheraction. As the
examples presented subsequently in this chapter demonstrate,
depending on how the relationships are described, a wide variety
of complex behavior can be described by thistechnique.
Conclusions of Pessimist Model
Three main conclusions were reached by this study. The first
suggests that within a time span of less than 100 years with no
major change in the physical, economic, or social relationships
that have traditionally governed world development, society will
run out of the nonrenewable resources on which the industrial
base depends. When the resources have been depleted, a
precipitous collapse of the economic system will result,
manifested in massive unemployment, decreased food production,
and a decline in population as the death rate soars. There is no
smooth transition, no gradual slowing down of activity; rather,
the economic system consumes successively larger amounts of the
depletable resources until they are gone. The characteristic
behavior of the system is overshoot and collapse (see Figure
1.1).
The second conclusion of the study is that piecemeal approaches
to solving the individual problems will not be successful. To
demonstrate this point, the authors arbitrarily double their
estimates of the resource base and allow the model to trace out
an alternative vision based on this new higher level of
resources. In this alternative vision the collapse still occurs,
but this time it is caused by excessive pollution generated by
the increased pace of industrialization permitted by the greater
availability of resources. The authors then suggest that if the
depletable resource and pollution problems were somehow jointly
solved, population would grow unabated and the availability of
food would become the binding constraint. In this model the
removal of one limit merely causes the system to bump
subsequently into another one, usually with more dire
consequences.
As its third and final conclusion, the study suggests that
overshoot and collapse can be avoided only by an immediate limit
on population and pollution, as well as a cessation of economic
growth. The portrait painted shows only two possible outcomes:
the termination of growth by self-restraint and conscious
policy—an approach that avoids the collapse—or the termination of
growth by a collision with the natural limits, resulting in
societal collapse. Thus, according to this study, one way or the
other, growth will cease. The only issue is whether the
conditions under which it will cease will be congenial or
hostile.
The Nature of the Model
Why were these conclusions reached? Clearly they depend on the
structure of the model. By identifying the characteristics that
yield these conclusions, we can examine the realism of those
characteristics.
The dominant characteristic of the model is exponential growth
coupled with fixed limits. Exponential growth in any variable
(for example, 3% per year) implies that the absolute increases in
that variable will be greater and greater each year. Furthermore,
the higher the rate of growth in resource consumption, the faster
a fixed stock of it will be exhausted. Suppose, for example,
current reserves of a resource are 100 times current use and the
supply of reserves cannot be expanded. If consumption were not
growing, this stock would last 100 years. However, if consumption
were to grow at 2% per year, the reserves would be exhausted in
55 years; and at 10%, exhaustion would occur after only 24 years.
Several resources are held in fixed supply by the model. These
include the amount of available land and the stock of depletable
resources. In addition, the supply of food is fixed relative to
the supply of land. The combination of exponential growth in
demand, coupled with fixed sources of supply, necessarily implies
that, at some point, resource supplies must be exhausted. The
extent to which those resources are essential thus creates the
conditions for collapse.
This basic structure of the model is in some ways reinforced and
in some ways tempered by the presence of numerous positive and
negative feedback loops. Positive feedback loops are those in
which secondary effects tend to reinforce the basic trend. An
example of a positive feedback loop is the process of capital
accumulation. New investment generates greater output, which,
when sold, generates profits. These profits can be used to fund
additional new investments. This example suggests a manner in
which the growth process is self-reinforcing.
Positive feedback loops may also be involved in global warming.
Scientists believe, for example, that the relationship between
emissions of methane and global warming may be described as a
positive feedback loop. Since methane is a greenhouse gas,
increases in methane emissions contribute to global warming. As
the planetary temperature rises, however, it could release
extremely large quantities of additional methane, and so on.
Human responses can intensify environmental problems. When
shortages of a commodity are imminent, for example, consumers
typically begin to hoard the commodity. Hoarding intensifies the
shortage. Similarly, people faced with shortages of food commonly
eat the seed that is the key to more plentiful food in the
future. Situations giving rise to this kind of downward spiral
are particularly troublesome.
A negative feedback loop is self-limiting rather than
self-reinforcing, as illustrated by the role of death rates in
limiting population growth in the model. As growth occurs, it
causes larger increases in industrial output, which, in turn,
cause more pollution. The increase in pollution triggers a rise
in death rates, retarding population growth. From this example it
can be seen that negative feedback loops can provide a tempering
influence on the growth process, though not necessarily a
desirable one.
Perhaps the best-known planetary-scale example of a negative
feedback is provided in a theory advanced by James Lovelock, an
English scientist. Called the Gaia hypothesis after the Greek
concept for Mother Earth, this view of the world suggests that
the earth is a living organism with a complex feedback system
that seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment.
Deviations from this optimal environment trigger natural,
nonhuman response mechanisms which restore the balance. In
essence, according to the Gaia hypothesis the planetary
environment is a self-regulating process.
The model of the world envisioned by the Gaia hypothesis is
incompatible with that envisioned by the Limits to Growth team.
Because of the dominance of positive feedback loops, coupled with
fixed limits on essential resources, the structure of the Limits
to Growth model preordains its conclusion that human activity is
on a collision course with nature. While the values assumed for
various parameters (the size of the stock of depletable
resources, for example) affect the timing of the various effects,
they do not substantially affect the nature of the outcome.
The dynamics implied by the notion of a feedback loop is helpful
in a more general sense than the specific relationships embodied
in this model. As we proceed with our investigation, the degree
to which our economic and political institutions serve to
intensify or to limit emerging environmental problems will be a
key concern.
Subject: Re: ?WHAT TAXES HAS CLINTON RAISED?
From: taxservice@aol.com
Date: 11 Nov 1996 23:57:51 GMT
In article <3287ED80.3B37@vegas.infi.net>, The Generalissimo
writes:
>taxservice@aol.com wrote:
>
>Sorry jack tax. Anyone that works collecting taxes is sucking off
society.
>If that is your job, you are the one that has never done an honest day's
work in
>your life.
I am not a tax collector! My work has to do with helping people avoid
having to pay them. Even if I can find no additional ways for my
friends/family/clients, they prefer other people doing the paperwork as
those who prefer to have someone else shine their shoes! Helping people
to get a fair shake - if you will - is my job!!! I don't pretend to be
anything other than someone who is doing a service for others. I don't
solicit them! The come to me!!!
>> You've made my case. Methinks you add to the *frenzy*!! Your obvious
>> contempt is apparent!! You sound like one of those down home
republican
>> racists as well as one of those rich white males (your words) who find
no
>> room for the children, old people, sick people and people of color and
>> criminals and women and everyone else from whom you suck resources and
>> their very life's blood to provide for your thirst for more and more of
>> what, in the end, will mean zilch to you.
>
>Further if you can not afford to raise children, you should not have
them.
>Imagine me purchasing a expensive car, not being able to afford
insurance,
>then asking YOU to pick up the bill. Next, old people. The old people
started a
>social security system that would have worked. Instead of having it
work, they
>voted (either directly or indirectly) to allow the govt. to loot the
trust fund.
In my immediate family, there are 80 grand and great-grandchildren. None
of them is on welfare. None of them ever have been. Most of them have
decent jobs and are active in the arts, some teach in universities, and
schools for the handicapped, others are in the aircraft industry, others
are cops, firemen, truckers, cooks, chefs, computer engineers, etc. and
many work in the tax business. They all pay social security taxes. The
combined amount of social security taxes paid by members of my family,
annually, exceeds the total social security I and at least 80 others like
me receive in one year.
> THEY spent their money back in the 40's. Interesting now they want to
spend
In the '40's, I worked for .09 - 9 cents an hour. I worked full time all
of my years through elementary, high school, and college!! Let me tell
you I made so much money at .09 - 9 cents an hour that I was able to
retire in th '50's. You've got a great imagination! Why don't you use it
towards something more constuctive. Why do you tear apart comments of
responsible people. Try to recognize your ass from the hole in the
ground!!!
>their money AGAIN!! Please explain how this works so I can spend my
mortguage >payment next month, then spend the same money again the
following month.
We, too, had mortgages. I don't know how you live, or what your mortgage
is. We lived within our means!! The mortgage mess and the high priced
homes all came about because of republican policies and money grubbing
pigs in the banking, finance, insurance and other profiteering
(monopolistic) industries.
>Sick people should be helped completely, unless their sickness came from
a self
>induced malady. If you got aids from a transfusion, help them out. If
you got
>aids from shooting up, oh well. If you got aids the other popular route,
"you
>makes your bets, and you spins the wheel". Next we are on to people of
color.
>Is Colin Powell not Black? Ok then there is nothing stopping blacks in
this
>country. He has reached far greater places in life than I will. Geraldo
not
So nice that you give consideration to the ill. At least you don't blame
ALL people with aids for having contracted the illness from what you
consider their ill deeds. That's a joke. The next step is to say "If
they do not believe in my god, they do not deserve medical attention
because of their denial of what I know to be true"!! My god is the right
god, their god is evil, they must be punished! And if that doesn't work
I'm sure you'll find another excuse for not having to care for the ills of
others.
Racism was brought into this conversation by a racist. I went to high
school and college in Little Rock. Long before Rosa refused to give up
her seat, I made a point of standing up to offer my seat to elderly and
pregnant brothers and sisters. I suppose they thought I was crazy so I
was left me alone. I lived through it but I am sure the sisters to whom I
made the offer never forgot!! I can remember big, strong, giant like
brothers, (when I was in the service in Mississippi), cowering in the
streets to make room for me to pass by. They trembled when asked a
question and still weren't sure that it was possible that they had
responded properly to someone who was trying to give them assurance they
weren't going to be hurt. I remember refusing to serve Sammy Davis Jr.
because it was the policy not to serve just anyone in Miami Beach back in
the late '50's. Although I served others, in spite of policy, I used the
denial as a tool for action that led to other freedoms, for a great many
more people shortly after that act. He was really pissed off but it was
that kind of action that was needed to motivate people, who had access to
power, to use that power!!
>hispanic? Oprah not black? Is "fill in the name" athlete not black. Is
not
>a black man on the supreme court? The problem is YOU are the racist that
>honestly beleives minorities can not compete with white people. Get over
your >racisim liberal. Criminals? Fuckem. Women? Are you going back
out on that >sexist limb and saying women can not compete with males? See
the above on >racisim.
I'm afraid you'll have to come up with other than racism as it applies to
me. That's a whole new thread!! I have a history! It's a very liberal
history. It's a kind history! It's a history that embraces rich and poor
and it includes my fellow man no matter what his heritage or station.
That's part of what a liberal is, my friend!!!
>Pretty much jack you are a leach on society wether you aid the govt in
>stealing money, or suck additional money from the citizens that under
duress are
>forced to you for help while the govt. steals their money.
Son, you don't have a clue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Jack"
John H. Fisher - TaxService@aol.com
Philadelphia, Pa. - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!!
Subject: Re: ?WHAT TAXES HAS CLINTON RAISED?
From: The Generalissimo
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:22:40 -0800
taxservice@aol.com wrote:
Sorry jack tax. Anyone that works collecting taxes is sucking off society. If
that is your job, you are the one that has never done an honest day's work in
your life.
>
> You've made my case. Methinks you add to the *frenzy*!! Your obvious
> contempt is apparent!! You sound like one of those down home republican
> racists as well as one of those rich white males (your words) who find no
> room for the children, old people, sick people and people of color and
> criminals and women and everyone else from whom you suck resources and
> their very life's blood to provide for your thirst for more and more of
> what, in the end, will mean zilch to you.
Further if you can not afford to raise children, you should not have them.
Imagine me purchasing a expensive car, not being able to afford insurance, then
asking YOU to pick up the bill. Next, old people. The old people started a
social security system that would have worked. Instead of having it work, they
voted (either directly or indirectly) to allow the govt. to loot the trust fund.
THEY spent their money back in the 40's. Interesting now they want to spend
their money AGAIN!! Please explain how this works so I can spend my mortguage
payment next month, then spend the same money again the following month. Sick
people should be helped completely, unless their sickness came from a self
induced malady. If you got aids from a transfusion, help them out. If you got
aids from shooting up, oh well. If you got aids the other popular route, "you
makes your bets, and you spins the wheel". Next we are on to people of color.
Is Colin Powell not Black? Ok then there is nothing stopping blacks in this
country. He has reached far greater places in life than I will. Geraldo not
hispanic? Oprah not black? Is "fill in the name" athlete not black. Is not a
black man on the supreme court? The problem is YOU are the racist that honestly
beleives minorities can not compete with white people. Get over your racisim
liberal. Criminals? Fuckem. Women? Are you going back out on that sexist
limb and saying women can not compete with males? See the above on racisim.
Pretty much jack you are a leach on society wether you aid the govt in stealing
money, or suck additional money from the citizens that under duress are forced
to you for help while the govt. steals their money.
>
> "Jack"
>
> John H. Fisher - TaxService@aol.com
> Philadelphia, Pa. - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
>
--
"To its committed members ( the democratic party) was still
the party of heart, humanity, and justice, but to those
removed a few paces it looked like Captain Hooks crew --
ambulance chasing lawyers, rapacious public policy grants
persons, civil rights gamesmen, ditzy brained movie stars,
fat assed civil servant desk squatters, recovering alcoholics,
recovering wife beaters, recovering child-buggers, and so forth
and so on, a grotesque line up of ill mannered, self pitying,
caterwauling freeloaders banging their tin cups on the pavement
demanding handouts". (The Washington post, 11/12/94) Nicholas Von Hoffman
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:17:46 -1000
George Antony Ph 93818 wrote:
-> >-> > Several resources are held in fixed supply by the model. These
-> >-> > include the amount of available land and the stock of
depletable
-> >-> > resources. In addition, the supply of food is fixed relative to
-> >-> > the supply of land. The combination of exponential growth in
-> >-> > demand, coupled with fixed sources of supply, necessarily
implies
-> >-> > that, at some point, resource supplies must be exhausted. The
-> >-> > extent to which those resources are essential thus creates the
-> >-> > conditions for collapse.
-> >->
-> >-> Sound conclusion, based on false premises.
>
> >Please elaborate (cite sources).
>
> "the supply of food is fixed relative to the supply of land"
>
> In other words, no allowance for higher yields: the whole world's
> agricultural productivity is frozen at the level prevailing when the
> paper was written (late 1960s, early 1970s perhaps).
>
> This has been proven a very stupid assumption. Indeed, it was then.
> For sources you could start with the FAO Statistical Yearbooks.
(Since the supply of land suitable for agriculture is
decreasing, perhaps their assumption of fixed yield is
wasn't such a bad one.)
In any event, they updated and reran the model 20 years
after the first run and came up with more-or-less the
same results.
------------------------------------------------------------
"In Scenario 1 the world society proceeds along its historical
path as long as possible without major policy change. Technology
advances in agriculture, industry, and social services according
to established patterns. There is no extraordinary effort to
abate pollution or conserve resources. The simulated world tries
to bring all people through the demographic transition and into
an industrial and then post-industrial economy. This world
acquires widespread health care and birth control as the service
sector grows; it applies more agricultural inputs and gets
higher yields as the agricultural sector grows; it emits more
pollutants and demands more nonrenewable resources as the
industrial sector grows.
"The global population in Scenario 1 rises from 1.6 billion in
the simulated year 1900 to over 5 billion in the simulated
year 1990 and over 6 billion in the year 2000. Total
industrial output expands by a factor of 20 between 1900 and
1990. Between 1900 and 1990 only 20% of the earth's total
stock of nonrenewable resources is used; 80% of these
resources remain in 1990. Pollution in that simulated year has
just begun to rise noticeably. Average consumer goods per
capita in 1990 is at a value of 1968-$260 per person per year
-- a useful number to remember for comparison in future runs.
Life expectancy is increasing, services and goods per capita
are increasing, food production is increasing. But major
changes are just ahead.
"In this scenario the growth of the economy stops and reverses
because of a combination of limits. Just after the simulated
year 2000 pollution rises high enough to begin to affect
seriously the fertility of the land. (This could happen in
the 'real world' through contamination by heavy metals or
persistent chemicals, through climate change, or through
increased levels of ultraviolet radiation from a diminished
ozone layer.) Land fertility has declined a total of only 5%
between 1970 and 2000, but it is degrading at 4.5% per year in
2010 and 12% per year in 2040. At the same time land erosion
increases. Total food production begins to fall after 2015.
That causes the economy to shift more investment into the
agriculture sector to maintain output. But agriculture has to
compete for investment with a resource sector that is also
beginning to sense some limits.
"In 1990 the nonrenewable resources remaining in the ground would
have lasted 110 years at the 1990 consumption rates. No
serious resource limits were in evidence. But by 2020 the
remaining resources constituted only a 30-year supply. Why did
this shortage arise so fast? Because exponential growth
increases consumption and lowers resources. Between 1990 and
2020 population increases by 50% and industrial output grows by
85%. The nonrenewable resource use rate doubles. During the
first two decades of the simulated twenty-first century, the
rising population and industrial plant in Scenario 1 use as
many nonrenewable resources as the global economy used in the
entire century before. So many resources are used that much
more capital and energy are required to find, extract, and
refine what remains.
"As both food and nonrenewable resources become harder to obtain
in this simulated world, capital is diverted to producing more
of them. That leaves less output to be invested in basic
capital growth.
"Finally investment cannot keep up with depreciation (this is
physical investment and depreciation, not monetary). The
economy cannot stop putting its capital into the agriculture
and resource sectors; if it did the scarcity of food,
materials, and fuels would restrict production still more. So
the industrial capital plant begins to decline, taking with it
the service and agricultural sectors, which have become
dependent upon industrial inputs. For a short time the
situation is especially serious, because the population keeps
rising, due to the lags inherent in the age structure and in
the process of social adjustment. Finally population too
begins to decrease, as the death rate is driven upward by lack
of food and health services." [p.p.132-134]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH WITH LIFE-SUPPORT COLLAPSE Billions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |11
You are here----------------+ |10
| _ |9
| _ -|~~-_ |8
V _ -~ | ~ - _ |7
_-~ | ~ _ |6
_- ~ | ~_|5
_-~ | |4
_-~ | |3
____ ---~ Massive human die-off begins. |2
-- ~~~~~~ (GIGADEATH) |1
--|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|---
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080
[P. 133, Meadows, et al., BEYOND THE LIMITS;
Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1992. 800-639-4099,
603-448-0317, Fax 603-448-2576; ISBN 0-930031-62-8]
BEYOND THE LIMITS is an update to the Club of Rome's 1972
LIMITS TO GROWTH and is endorsed by Jan Tinbergen.
Tinbergen shared the first Nobel Prize for Economics in 1969.
[For a good history of this issue, see:
Neurath, FROM MALTHUS TO THE CLUB OF ROME AND BACK;
M. E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, 1994; ISBN 1-56324-408-X
For a detailed book about the Club of Rome itself, see:
Moll: FROM SCARCITY TO SUSTAINABILITY; Peter Lang, 1995.]
For more, see:
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page5.htm
Subject: The Betrayal of Science and Reason
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:16:08 -1000
For Immediate Release
Contact: Lisa Magnino at press@islandpress.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Betrayal of Science and Reason
Paul and Anne Ehrlich Chronicle Anti-Environmental Efforts of the
"Brownlash" in Betrayal of Science and Reason
World-renowned scientists and writers Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H.
Ehrlich have long been dedicated to educating the public and
policymakers about environmental issues. Their efforts have
greatly improved our understanding of the impact of humans on the
earth's resources and aided in the passage of environmental
protection measures. Yet, as the Ehrlichs explain in their new
book, "we and other environmental scientists find ourselves once
again struggling to preserve those gains and to keep global
environmental deterioration from escalating beyond repair."
In Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental
Rhetoric Threatens Our Future ($24.95, hardcover), the Ehrlichs
have written a hard-hitting, timely account of the backlash
against environmental policies that they label the "brownlash."
The brownlash distorts and denies mainstream scientific thinking
in an effort to roll back environmental policies in favor of
immediate economic interests. Its message is given voice most
often by individuals aligned with right-wing organizations or
private interests and is propagated in the mainstream media,
which lends it an unfortunate aura of credibility.
As the Ehrlichs explain, the brownlash succeeds in large part
because the public and policymakers alike have a limited
understanding of science and scientific procedure: "To the
average person the scientific process is a sort of black hole, an
alien world of arcane experiments, unintelligible or confusing
results, and peculiar people." Ironically, point out the
Ehrlichs, the very principles that create sound science--such as
peer review, an adversarial framework that subjects accepted
scientific knowledge to continual challenge while ensuring that
any new hypothesis is vigorously tested--create fodder for
opponents' attacks.
At the core of Betrayal of Science and Reason is a systematic
debunking of the myths advanced by the brownlash, such as:
* natural resources are superabundant, if not infinite
* risks posed by toxic substances are vastly exaggerated
* stratospheric ozone depletion is a hoax
* global warming and acid rain are not serious threats to
humanity
* there is no extinction crisis
* humanity is on the verge of abolishing hunger; food scarcity
is a local or regional problem and is not indicative of
overpopulation
* population growth does not cause environmental damage, and
may even be beneficial.
The Ehrlichs explain clearly and with scientific objectivity the
empirical findings behind these issues, presenting information
that can be used to evaluate and respond to the erroneous
information and misrepresentation put forth by the brownlash.
Betrayal of Science and Reason also examines how brownlash
rhetoric finds its way into the media, citing competition,
deadline pressures, and the emphasis upon trends and controversy
in reporting. The Ehrlichs give numerous examples in which
national news organizations were duped by brownlash rhetoric and
in which journalists sympathetic to the message of the brownlash
almost single-handedly affected public opinion.
In closing, the Ehrlichs encourage scientists to get involved in
educating the public- "if something is worth discovering, it is
worth communicating" - and the public to "get acquainted with the
issues."
Perhaps no other scientist has been the target of brownlash
rhetoric more consistently than Paul Ehrlich, who is routinely
attacked as an alarmist or doomsayer for his work on human
population issues. He is Bing Professor of Population Studies and
professor of biological sciences at Stanford University, and the
author of 30 books, including The Population Bomb. Anne H.
Ehrlich is senior research associate in biological sciences at
Stanford University and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences.
Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric
Threatens Our Future
By Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich
Shearwater Books/Island Press
Publication Date: October 21, 1996
320 pages, Appendices, index
Hardcover: $24.95 ISBN: 1-55963-483-9
Members of the press: please send two tearsheets of any mention of this
title to our Washington address: Island Press 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW,
Suite 300. Washington, DC 20009. When providing ordering information,
please use the following: Island Press, Box 7, Dept. 2PR, Covelo, CA
95428;
800/828-1302.
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:13:33 GMT
af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
>(Magnus Redin) wrote:
>: That 200 000 reactor figures is meant to demonstrate that it is
>: possible to provide our culture with plenty of power indefinately.
>: Its not a building program to replace all power production with
>: nuclear power immediately even if that would be desirable.
> Well, lets see. If we must reduce fossil fuel consumption to 1/6th
> its current level, and world energy consumption is projected to grow
> by a factor of 2 to 4 by 2100, either we must reduce per capita
> energy consumption to a factor of 1/12th to 1/24th its current level
> - which McCarthie and other luddites, appears to oppose, or we must
> rely on some mixture of renewable/nuclear power.
Very true, that is a very good reason to find nuclear power promising.
> You would be wise to ask Mr. McCarthy what fraction of the worlds
> energy he sees being generated by solar, and what fraction he would
> like to see generated by nuclear. McCarthy is on record as rejecting
> any large scale plan to capture solar energy.
I am sure he will comment this himself if he wants to.
>Magnus Redin wrote:
>: To get the steam to turn the turbines one needs more constructioning
>: when building a nuclear powerplant then a coal or oil powerplant. But
>: you need less equipment and energy for handling the fuel.
> This is totally unclear. Can you provide any factual information to
> back up this claim? On first consideration it would appear very
> incorrect.
What is unclear?
Nuclear powerplants often use steel reactor vessels that are harder
to manufacture then boilers and they need a containment vessel and
most designs also need redundant pumps, control systems and emergency
generators for the nuclear safety.
The uranium mines are smaller then the coal mines and the mass of coal
is _much_ larger so there is need for special ships, railways and
dedicated harbours. And the ash from coal powerplants ought to be
treated with the same respect as nuclear waste but that is not
important for this rough comparision.
>Magnus Redin wrote:
>: It takes
>: five years to build a BWR 1100 MW nuclear powerplant like Forsmark 3
>: in Sweden, it would have taken slightly less to build a 1100 MW coal
>: powerplant.
> Construction time is really insignificant. Operational lifetime is
> more important to our analysis of how fast reactors would have to be
> built in order to reach 200,000. We know that 4,000 new reactors
> would have to be constructed each year to maintain the number at
> 200,000. This would mean that at any moment - given your 5 year
> figure - 20,000 reactors would be under construction worldwide.
> This is a rate of reactor construction that is about 2,000 times
> faster than we have seen before.
Good point. The Swedish reactors were designed for 40 years life
lenght and are doing well and I have heard that the last generation
could work for 60 years but I am not sure about that. I find it
reasonable that straightforward refinemnet of the building methods
could give designs that are easy to refurbish so that we could have
lifelenghts of something like 60 + 40 + 40 years before the basic
structures are worn out.
> Magnus Redin wrote:
>: I find it reasonable to assume that a nuclear infrastructure would
>: cost about twise as much and definately less then four times as much
>: as a corresponding fossil infrastructure for generating electrical
>: power.
> And what is the cost of improving efficiency so that less energy is
> required in the first place?
Look again at your example at the top of this post. We need _both_
improved efficiency and lots of enviromentally friendly power.
> Magnus Redin wrote:
>: Btw, it would take about 500 nuclear reactors to supply all the
>: electricity USA currently needs. USA has 1/20 of the world population.
>: To supply the same ammount of electricity to everybody with nuclear
>: power would mean 10,000 nuclear reactors.
> Thank you Magnus, but we have already gone over the numbers. By the
> time you finish constructing a fraction of those reactors, the world's
> population will have doubled and energy consumption per person (world
> average) will have increased by a factor of 2 to 4.
Nuclear power can help a lot but not solve all problems. Should we
reject all solutions that cant solve all problems at the same time?
> More importantly, non-electrical power generation must also find
> substitutes for carbon based fuels over this interval if we are to
> avoid significant changes in climate.
Yes, more work. At least we can avoid using coal, oil and gas to
generate electricity or heat. Its better to reserve the fossil fuels
for cars, trucks, ships and aeroplanes.
> McCarthy has stated in his promotion of nuclear power that it can
> supply of mans energy needs for billions of years.
He is trying and doing well with showing that our culture can survive
and prosper for a very long time if we work at it. Isent that good and
a better vision then the doomsayers?
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:32:38 -1000
Mike Asher wrote:
> As an aside, I will note that the majority of agricultural land in the
> world is farmed with low-tech inefficient methods. Expantion of the use of
> modern agriculture, new species, and good infrastructure, can more than
> double world food production. All without an additional acre being farmed,
> though, in the US at least, agricultural land usage has been on the decline
> for many years. Perhaps you have some statistics here?
Modern agriculture is not sustainable.
=========================================================================
THERMODYNAMICS AND THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOOD PRODUCTION
by Jay Hanson — revised 11/04/96
All matter and energy in the universe are subject to the Laws of
Thermodynamics. In the discipline of Ecological Economics, systems are
delimited so that they are meaningful to our economy. What does
thermodynamics have to do with the sustainability of food production?
The two essential forms of stored thermodynamic potential are "energy"
(e.g., a barrel of oil) and "order" (e.g., clean drinking water and deep
topsoil). "Entropy" is a measure of the unavailability of energy: the
entropy of oil increases as it burns, and the entropy of a water table
increases as it falls because more energy will be required to pump it to
the surface.
Entropy can also be thought of as a measure of disorder in a system:
polluted water that requires purification has higher entropy than the
same
water unpolluted, and the entropy of topsoil increases when it erodes or
is
polluted by salt from evaporating irrigation water.[1]
Sustainable systems are "circular" (outputs become inputs)—all linear
physical systems must eventually end. Modern agriculture is increasing
entropy in both its sources (e.g., energy, soil, and ground water) and
its
sinks (e.g., water and soil). Thus, modern agriculture is not
circular—it
can not be sustained.
Consider the most important limiting variable—energy.[2]
There is NO substitute for energy. Although the economy treats energy
just
like any other resource, it is NOT like any other resource. Energy is
the
precondition for ALL other resources and oil is the most important form
of
energy we use, making up about 38 percent of the world energy supply.
40 years ago, geologist M. King Hubbert developed a method for
projecting
future oil production and predicted that oil production in the lower-48
states would peak about 1970. These predictions have proved to be
remarkably accurate. Both total and peak yields have risen slightly
compared to Hubbert's original estimate, but the timing of the peak and
the
general downward trend of production were correct.[3]
In March of this year, World Resources Institute published a report that
stated:
"Two important conclusions emerge from this discussion. First, if
growth in world demand continues at a modest 2 percent per year,
production could begin declining as soon as the year 2000. Second,
even enormous (and unlikely) increases in [estimated ultimately
recoverable] oil buy the world little more than another decade
(from
2007 to 2018). In short, unless growth in world oil demand is
sharply
lower than generally projected, world oil production will probably
begin its long-term decline soon—and certainly within the next two
decades."[4]
Well, so much for oil! Should we be alarmed? YES! Modern
agriculture—indeed, all of modern civilization—requires massive,
uninterrupted flows of oil-based energy.
To really understand the underlying causes and implications of oil
depletion, one must stop thinking of the "dollar cost" of oil, and take
a
look at the "energy cost" of oil. We note that the energy cost of
domestic
oil has risen dramatically since 1975.[5] As oil becomes harder and
harder
to find and get out of the ground, more and more energy is required to
recover each barrel. In other words, the increasing energy cost of
energy
is due to increasing entropy (disorder) in our biosphere.
Optimists tend to assume that the "type" of energy we use is not
significant (e.g., liquid vs. solid), that an infinite amount of social
capital is available to search for and produce energy, and that an
infinite
amount of solar energy is available for human use. Realists know that
none
of these assumptions is true.
In fact, all alternative methods of energy production require oil-based
energy inputs and are subject to the same inevitable increases in
entropy.
Thus, there is NO solution to the energy (entropy or disorder) problem,
and
the worldwide energy-food crisis is inevitable.
When we can no longer subsidize modern agriculture with massive fossil
energy inputs (oil-based pesticides and fertilizers, machine fuel,
packaging, distribution, etc.), yields will drop to what they were
before
the Green Revolution![6] Moreover, billions of people could die this
coming
century when the U.S. is no longer able to export food[7] and mass
starvation sweeps the Earth.
Is there nothing we can do?
We could lessen human suffering if all the people of Earth cooperated
for
the common good. But as long as political systems serve only as
corporate
errand boys, we're dead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many entropy references are archived at: :
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page17.htm
1. p.p. 42-43, ENERGY AND THE ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS OF SUSTAINABILITY,
John Peet; Island Press, 1992. ISBN 1-55963-160-0. Phone:
800-828-1302
or 707-983-6432; FAX: 707-983-6164 http://www.islandpress.com
2. http://www.igc.apc.org/millennium/g2000r/fig13.html
3. p. 55, BEYOND OIL, Gever et al.; Univ. Press Colorado, 1991.
303-530-5337 See also:
http://www.wri.org/wri/energy/jm_oil/gifs/oil_f4-5.html
4. http://www.wri.org/wri/energy/jm_oil/index.html
5. http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page20.htm
6. p. 27, Gever et al., 1991.
7. Estimated in 1994 to be about 2025 by Pimentel. See:
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page40.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELECTED EXAMPLES OF SOIL DEGRADATION
Country Extent of Degradation
Erosion affects more than a third of China's territory some
3.67 million square kilometers. In Guangxi province, more
than a fifth of irrigation systems are destroyed or
China completely silted up by eroded soils. Salination has
lowered crop yields on 7 million hectares, use of untreated
urban sewage has seriously damaged some 2.5 million
hectares, and nearly 7 million hectares are polluted by
industrial wastes.
Eroded area increases by 400,000-500,000 hectares each
Russia year, and now affects two-thirds of Russia's arable land.
Water erosion has created some 400,000 gullies covering
more than 500,000 hectares.
Nearly all—94 percent—of Iran's agricultural land is
estimated to be degraded, the bulk of it to a moderate or
Iran strong degree. Salination affects some 16 million hectares
of farmland, and has forced at least 8 million hectares
from production.
Gullies occupy some 60 percent of the 1.8 million hectare
Pakistan Pothwar Plateau. More than 16 percent of agricultural land
suffers from salination. In all, more than 61 percent of
agricultural land is degraded.
Degradation affects one-quarter of India's agricultural
land. Erosion associated with shifting cultivation has
India denuded approximately 27,000 square kilometers of land east
of Bihar. At least 2 million hectares of salinized land
have been abandoned.
32 percent of land is suitable for farming, but 61 percent
Haiti is farmed. Severe erosion eliminated 6,000 hectares of
cropland per year in the mid-1980s.
More than 4.5 million hectares of drylands—10 percent of
Australia all cropland—and more than 8 percent of irrigated area are
affected by salting. Area affected by dryland salting
doubled in size between 1975 and 1989.
Worldwatch Institute, Paper #131, Gary Gardner, July 1996, p.p. 28-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUNDWATER DEPLETION IN MAJOR REGIONS OF THE WORLD, c. 1990
Region/Aquifer Estimates of Depletion
Net depletion to date of this large aquifer, which
underlies nearly 20% of all U.S. irrigated land,
totals some 325 billion cubic meters, roughly 15
High Plains times the average annual flow of the Colorado
Aquifer System, River. More than two-thirds of this depletion has
United States occurred in the Texas High Plains, where irrigated
area dropped by 26% between 1979 and 1989. Current
depletion is estimated at 12 billion cubic meters
per year.
Groundwater overdraft averages 1.6 billion cubic
meters per year, amounting to 15% of the state's
California, annual net groundwater use. Two-thirds of the
United States depletion occurs in the Central Valley, the
country's (and to some extent the world's) fruit
and vegetable basket.
Overpumping in Arizona alone totals more than 1.2
billion cubic meters per year. East of Phoenix,
Southwest, United water tables have dropped more than 120 meters.
States Projections for Albuquerque, N.M., show that if
groundwater withdrawals continue at current rates,
water tables will drop an additional 20 meters on
average by 2020.
Pumping exceeds natural recharge by 50-80%, which
Mexico City and has led to falling water tables, aquifer
Valley of Mexico compaction, land subsidence, and damage to surface
structures.
Groundwater use is nearly three times greater than
recharge. Saudi Arabia depends on nonrenewable
groundwater for roughly 75% of its water, which
Arabian Peninsula includes irrigation of 2-4 million tons of wheat
per year. At the depletion rates projected for the
1990s, exploitable groundwater reserves would be
exhausted within about 50 years.
Net depletion in Libya totals nearly 3.8 billion
North Africa cubic meters per year. For the whole of North
Africa, current depletion is estimated at 10
billion cubic meters per year.
Pumping from the coastal plain aquifer bordering
Israel and Gaza the Mediterranean Sea exceeds recharge by some
60%;
salt water has invaded the aquifer.
Spain One-fifth of total groundwater use, or 1 billion
cubic meters per year, is unsustainable.
Water tables in the Punjab, India's breadbasket,
are falling 20 centimeters annually across
India two-thirds of the state. In Gularat, groundwater
levels declined in 90% of observation wells
monitored during the 1980s. Large drops have also
occurred in Tamil Nadu.
The water table beneath portions of Beijing has
North China dropped 37 meters over the last four decades.
Overdrafting is widespread in the north China
plain, an important grain-producing region.
Significant overdraft has occurred in and around
Southeast Asia Bangkok, Manila, and Jakarta. Overpumping has
caused land to subside beneath Bangkok at a rate
of
5-10 centimeters a year for the past two decades.
Worldwatch Institute, Paper #132, Sandra Postel, September 1996, p.p.
20-21.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 18:30:34 GMT
ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) wrote:
>Maybe things will get better in the future, as you say. But things
>will have to get _much_ better before the price of fish falls to, say,
>its 1935 level. Back then, fish was two and a half times cheaper than
>it is today, relative to the CPI. Even since 1970, the price of fish
>has gone up 40% faster than overall inflation. "We're running out
>of fish" doesn't seem like such a bad summary to me.
Farmed fish is expanding like crazy. Salmon, which was a luxury in my
childhood, is now available at the local supermarket. It is cheaper
than meat, and comes in several different breeds, with correspondingly
different flavours.
Surimi, ground fish paste engineered into mock crabs legs, imitation
lobster, and so forth, is now a major product in North America, as it
has always been in Japan. It costs about a penny a gram, roughly the
same as cheese.
Cod is in crisis this decade, but the price has not changed
appreciably. It is still cheaper than haddock or sole, more expensive
than perch. I don't know where Scott gets his numbers on price rises;
here in Toronto the _retail_ prices of sole, haddock, cod and perch
have been flat for at least the last seven years, i.e. they have
gotten cheaper in terms of income. The prices of dogfish ("Boston
Blue"), and salmon have dropped. Pollack, formerly thought inedible,
has come on the market at half the price of cod, around two dollars a
pound. Mackerel contines to be cheap, but smoked mackerel fillets
(including Mexican and Louisiana themes) have come on the market at
$11 to $15 a kilo, a fantastic marketing coup! Catfish, similarly, is
an expensive luxury good in Canada! The price of lox has gone through
the roof, but I attribute this to the mass marketing of bagels, not to
any shortage of salmon.
As I interpret it the overall situation is comparable to that with
wheat over the last 18 months: 1.) there are fluctuations in price
which depend upon production conditions; 2.) supply is increasing and
can be increased much further through the extension of farming; 3.)
prices may be pushed up greatly by the demand of the very large number
of people who are coming to have the income to demand more than beans
and mealie. East Africans and Chinese, e.g., are becoming rich enough
to want white bread and wheat buns, respectively.
Since goiter is a major problem in China we can guess that there are
hundreds of millions of people who have never _seen_ a fish. In the
coming generation they are going to be coming into the consumer market
and pushing up the prices.
On the other hand we have vast amounts of corn and soybeans which at
the moment are being fed to fat, unhealthy, cattle. One of the neat
things about fish farming is that you can stack the fish vertically.
You shovel the food over the side, and what the top ones don't eat,
the ones lower down will get.
For the coming hundred years I see no problem with the production of
adequate, and improved, food for human beings. Cattle ranching and
lot-feeding, however, will probably be in relative decline.
-dlj.