成人论坛

there is as much land under garden as there is under agriculture so no shortage of land. Since the new rural payments, if the rest of the uk is like around here, half the fields have been left fallow anyway as farmers play at being 'stewards'.

those who do sun gazing [search on ytube] know all the body needs is sun energy and food is a secondary source of that.

so no Dad's Army panic.

Dear Newsnight

There is enough food, we in the West need to eat a lot less of it,

Eating too much is an addiction which can be broken, so specialised help is needed for this, one of the great things about the bodies processing of food is how little we actually need,

and perhaps the sea could be harnessed to provide the food we need so long as we stop poisoning the oceans

Bob

Average Britons produce at least 200lbs of turd a year..some weight training classes produce 1200lbs of turd a year...

We would be growing at maybe a 1lb every two days had not the NHS economists prevented it...

Every military cavern under britain is we presume producing at maximum capacity animals and crops for every class in Britain... we imagine car parks full ...or bacteriological vats fast breeding essential genetic material for consumable reciprocesses ...

Britain may seem barren wooded and uncropped..but presumably 10 to 50 times observable land capacity is being produced under the hills...

PREDICTABLE

Who one earth invited Richard D North to give his opinion? he's completely bonkers. I couldn't believe the rubbish he was coming out with or why Kirsty Wark didn't challenge his insane witterings. There was barely a sentence uttered by him that wasn't a complete lie. You might as well interview David Icke about Diana's funeral.

It was disappointing to see North being used to present the case for big agri-businesses and the free market to solve the world problems. He seemed incapable of presenting a reasoned arguement to counter the points being made by Andrew Sims and resorted to name calling. His take on the situation was that of a fairly blinkered, ill-informed mesiah of the extreme right-free markets and big business always OK -so it could be argued that he couldn't have done better had he tried.

With populations and economies growing in the long term, only truly sustainable agriculture is viable. But tell this to people living in growing economies who understandably want to share a piece of our cake of abundance. If we enjoyed it, why can't they anymore? Why should they shoulder the inconveniences that we might need to impose on ourselves and urge the growing economies to copy? These questions will undoubtedly need to be addressed to avoid further conflicts on a large scale related to the access to resources.

P

There is more than enough food produced now to feed the world. However, demand is increasing so it is complancent to take the current good quality food supply we have in the west for granted. We will need to harness technology for the future - but selecting the best production methods for different given circumstances.

In this context the EU needs to re-consider it's current agriculture policy which is hampering access to technology and limiting investment in the future

Let the free market bring the world its food.

Let's stop having the EU meddling with farm subsidies, and governemnts subsidising biofuel. This just distorts production.

The last time governments became all involved in food people were lining out in the snow Moscow waiting for empty shelves.

Let the free market bring the world its food.

Let's stop having the EU meddling with farm subsidies, and governemnts subsidising biofuel. This just distorts production.

The last time governments became all involved in food people were lining out in the snowy Moscow waiting for empty shelves.

With populations and economies growing in the long term, only truly sustainable agriculture is viable. But tell this to people living in growing economies who understandably want to share a piece of our cake of abundance. If we enjoyed it, why can't they anymore? Why should they shoulder the inconveniences that we might need to impose on ourselves and urge the growing economies to copy? These questions will undoubtedly need to be addressed to avoid further conflicts on a large scale related to the access to resources.

P

Vaz's wool-pulling endeavours should fool nobody. They're still as transparent as ever and haven't improved one jot since he was last very much in the public eye.

He knows only too well that there's neither the time nor the facility for his illogical and disingenuous pro-referendum call; based not on the Reform Treaty, which is what all this is about, but on "in or out"....."put this thing behind us for once and for all" twaddle.
Euro-federalists keep on squawking about the Tories/far right as if they were the only ones in favour of a referendum. Were that the case then the Conservatives would be in Government with the biggest majority in history, because according to the voting taking place right now on the 成人论坛's website the position so far is thus: 5296 votes - "Yes" to a referendum - 81.40% - "No" 15.52% and "Not Sure" - 3.57%.

Since when did the Tories command 81.40% of the popular vote?

I was born, raised and still live here in the heart of what was once referred to by the press and tv as 'Scargill country". This is where virtually every man and his dog have shown unstinting allegiance to Labour since the party was very first formed. Anyone asking them now what they think of Brown's blatantly arrogant refusal to hold a referendum, would receive an earful of four-letter words that say it all.

The Electorate's red lines are vastly different to and more in number than Brown's/Blair's red herrings.

It was nice to see some sense being spoken on this subject for once by Mr North. The last 50 years has seen huge advances in agricultural techniques (see the "green revolution") and to suggest we'd we better off returning to traditional techniques is madness. Millions of people in the developed world would have to go back to substinance farming, and much of our remaining natural habitats would have to be cultivated to do this. Africa could kiss goodbye to food aid.

Of course our food production system isn't perfect. Setting land aside when there are people starving is immoral at best (although i guess there are sound principles behind it) and flying fruit around the world for supermarkets is a waste of good oil. Converting crops to biofuel is a waste of good food (and a drop in the ocean compared to the fossil fuels we actuall use) There not reasons to scrap our scientific farming techniques and go back to the dark ages though.

Look at Iowa - a US state almost entirely made up of gigantic mega-farms. If old fashioned methods worked better wouldn't they be using them?

I was appalled by the quality of last night's debate, but horrified by the remarks made in this forum. Only one person mentioned the need for population control, which is the only long term solution to the problem. Here is the situation: the world population is expected to " stabilise" at 9 billion by 2050. The earth can support around 2 billion with everyone living at a "modest european level". These are figures from the UN and other reputable sources, not some ecomaniac's nightmare. As one contributor said, we can currently produce enough food for everyone. This may be true, but if it is, it is only because we are, with our mechanised agricultural system, effectively converting fossil fuels into food. Fossil fuels are running out, and we are currently (as mentioned at the end of the TV article) using resources equivalent to two earths. The green revolution, so called, was a disaster, causing not only massive degradation of land and increasing
desrtification, but also economic problems when poor farmers became dependent on specialised seeds and chemical pesticides, sold to them by western multinationals. GM is even worse, as some companies actually take out patents on genes found in wild flora and fauna (they would sell us the air to breathe if it were possible to do so). Even if ways were found to produce enough food to feed more people, this would merely result in population increase. And before you say that population comes down as living standards go up, consider that an increase in living standards results in increased consumption of all resources, and also more waste. The two curves of rising affluence and lower birth rate will never meet in a sustainable place, unless we adopt plans to reduce the world population.
Despite one or two hopeful signs, such as a recent feature on Woman's Hour, the 成人论坛 is still terrified of tackling the population issue, preferring to skirt around it as they did in such a ridiculous way last night. I thought the 成人论坛 was required to present all strands of opinion, but there is still a taboo about this one.

The future of food...

I think this all looks a bit dodgy. Is it about feeding people? Or is it about making money?

It seems that whenever there is money involved, sense goes out the window!

It is all about the rich and the poor. The gluttonous and the starving. Both are equally disgusting human conditions.

Where is the middle ground?

We don't need GM, we don't need massive populations.

Help people to help themselves and reach a situation where everyone is suitably fed, housed, contented.

Grow organic or use minimal non organic methods. We don't know what we are doing to this planet, we don't even know 1% of the species we share it with.

Populations will stabilise when people are contented.

People will be contented when they have a basic quality of life. Don't be greedy, do it.

Why does Newsnight, which is supposed to be a sensible programme, find these reactionaries like Andrew Simms who, frankly, seem to border on insane?

Is this meant to be a serious discussion of the issues at hand, or a philosophical detour down the backstreets of romantic nonsense? I am still shocked this clown seemed to be proposing, with not the slightest hint of sarcasm, that a prosperous future lies in a pre-industrial agrarian society. Christ, do people like him really have nothing better to do than think up ways of sounding "avant guarde"?

All this talk about sustainability, pollution, carbon targets... It's all rubbish! The problem is TO MANY PEOPLE!!! People = Carbon use, People = Pollution, People = unsustainable.

Until humanity understands that humans are a plague on the planet, multiplying unchecked, we have no hope of saving humanity; and like every other plague we will continue to multiply until a massive population crash occurs as resources diminish.

The problem is that the answer to all our problems is too simple, population control. A simple 1 child policy committed globally would halve the world's population, carbon emission, pollution etc by 2050. At current growth rates population will be over 18 billion by 2050, tippling emissions. Sadly population control on a global scale won't happen because nobody makes money out of it, politicians can't gain power from it, business doesn鈥檛 like the prospect of shrinking markets and it goes against every religious belief that humans have evolved.

So basically we're screwed, we just continue with the face saving and posturing of politicians so called environmental scientists and ignore the real problem - People.

The problem begs examination of one of the many absurdities of Kyoto and its proposed follow on treaty. Were the US to comply with Kyoto, one of the consequences would be a sharp curtailment of its energy intensive food production system. The alternative of Americans themselves switching to a largely vegitarian diet to sacrifice their love of meat so that those in poorer countries could consume the grains livestock require would be politically unacceptable. You can see indications of the consequences to world food supplies and prices already by a mere minor diversion of some grains to ethanol production. Meanwhile China's unchecked industrial growth is eating up farmland converting it to new industrial and other non agricultural use. The same is happening in India. Desertification, the dessication of what could be productive farmland through climate change induced drought is occurring worldwide in India, Africa, Australia, China, and the US among others. Slash and burn farming in the tropics is destroying the world's rainforests but the poor soil in these areas are depleted within just a few short years rendering them useless. Economists' wild predictions that recent trends will continue out into the indefinite future are of course absurd. Lack of adequate water is another factor which will limit agriculture. There is no doubt that unchecked population growth especially in the developing world is adding to the problem. At the very least there will be new mouths to feed but there will also be expectation of sharing of the wealth and prosperity that modern industrialized society is capable of granting and disappointment and then rage with it doesn't materialize. North America is one of the last refuges of vast tracts of unspoiled arable land but its inhabitants will not agree to sacrifice it to the political and religious folly of other nations around the world. I'm afraid we may be on the verge of famines on a scale we haven't seen in a very long time.

Where to grow the food, indeed! On the land that you no longer waste for pasturing animals destined for the slaughterhouse! Milk cows and goats are fine, as long as they are allowed to live out their full natual lives!
Don't raise animals for slaughter and you will have plenty of everything forever! Admit it! This is the truth!

Nowadays, do Shaolin monks practise kung fu not only for self-defences and healthy, but also for promoting tourism and creating movie stars.
It is the reason why have so many Chinese youngsters crazy about learning fung fu. Maybe one day they become Jacky Chan or Jet Li, and
maybe one day shares of Shaolin Fung Fu Corporation can be trading in the market? " Oh, My Budda and O li tall fat"!!!