Ooops ....

Farrage

Whenever a French man of state has sex with someone not his wife, people call me up and ask why he did it. When I say people do, I really mean journalists (a sub-species whose personhood is sometimes in doubt) and I suppose I really mean newspaper editors and radio producers (a still more dubious class).

I like this man :-)

It is sometimes said that the French attitude towards adultery and politics is elitist. That is, that powerful French people assume an arrogant licence to do what they like that normal French people aren't allowed.

I like him even more.

It was just a year ago that Unesco declared French gastronomy one of the world's cultural treasures, like Angkor Wat or the Tower Of London.

The point of great French dining is not that we should simply sit down and celebrate our appetites, but that we have to transform our hungers into civilised desires. Learning which fork to use means learning when not to.

Lost some brownie points there. French cuisine is over-rated, and over priced. I went to a 1* Michelin rated restaurant last week for a relatives 80th birthday. At £85 a head I was glad I wasn't paying. The food all looked very pretty siting on the plate, but there wasn't much of it. I want food I can eat, not submissions to the Tate Gallery to assuage the Chef's ego. And as for meat, the day the French ever learn to cook that properly the moon will fall out of the sky. I'm not interested in raw bloody meat on my plate, if I want to be a cannibal I'll emigrate to South America. Cook it properly or don't bother.

Civilised table manners came from the British Victorians anyway, not the French. We have sorbet courses to refresh the palate, they have bonking interludes, probably with the hostess.

BBC magazine

That is the first thing that gets banned in the UK if an "official drought" is declared. Hoses, sprinklers, all that sort of stuff goes first. The worst drought we ever knew caused standpipes in the streets in 1947, and there was a risk of it again in 2012. standpipes. People look at the current flooding and say how can we have a drought after this? The point is that all this surface water is draining off the waterlogged land into rivers, which then burst their banks down stream, only some is going into reservoirs or topping up underground aquifers, or raising the water table. Eventually, when the rain stops, most floodwaters find their way to the seas and oceans, and the whole cycle will start again.

I don't know about America, but due to land shortage in the UK they have been building on known flood plains, which are the first to suffer in heavy weather. People are so desperate for housing they take a chance. They might think again when next years house & contents insurance is due and they see the new premium. I suppose it's akin to living on the slopes of a dormant volcano, people do it.

I would that he imposes a ban on watering your lawn. Or washing your car in your driveway.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Good Lord ......

We mentioned water shortages earlier, including those within the US. Here is the latest news from CA.

California drought: Gov. Jerry Brown declares emergency, asks public to ration water

Maybe, but then you need the desalination plants to make it suitable for irrigation and domestic use, then you also need the supply pipework from the collection points to the plants, before it can be sent to the distribution systems. If it was that economic the world would be doing it big time.

They already are in many places, and as resources get stretched further, it will become economic.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

It's still going to be seen as a "state penalty" for having kids. Some people say that it is socially irresponsible to have more than two children. Others say that any curb is big brother dictatorship against basic human rights. We all hear about families with 9 or 10 kids, that the tabloid press love to have headlines about, that clearly happens because the parents prefer to have meal tickets than work for a living. Then there are the other couples that sadly can't have children for whatever reason.

Upon the face of it, it would seem sensible for people to only have the size of family that they can practically support, but since the advent of the NHS and the Welfare system, that isn't a constraint any more. In Victorian times surplus children were sent to the workhouse. But Dr Thomas Barnardo felt that workhouses were the wrong places for children and so from 1867 onwards, he led the way in setting up proper children’s homes.

But what if the state continued to pay child benefits for each child, until 18 yrs old, but the tax increase was to be a smaller amount but for whole of life?

Adoption is of course an avenue open to people, whether they can have their own children or not, provided they are found suitable. There is also the role of foster parents.

Two-thirds of the planet's surface is covered with water, there's plenty.

Maybe, but then you need the desalination plants to make it suitable for irrigation and domestic use, then you also need the supply pipework from the collection points to the plants, before it can be sent to the distribution systems. If it was that economic the world would be doing it big time.

I like the idea of a state bonus for a vasectomy, say £1000, but these days most are reversible. And what happens if the wife/partner dies in an accident or illness, the husband/partner may in time choose to enter a new relationship. Then you are dragging sperm banks into the picture.

Or adoption. There are 68,110 children waiting to be adopted in the UK, according to BAAF.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Maybe that there is theoretically enough land and technology to feed 11 or 12 billion, but is there enough water. Over thirty years ago there were predictions that the next major wars would be about water rights.

Two-thirds of the planet's surface is covered with water, there's plenty.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Take farming out of the free market? Are you joking? How did those collective farms work out for Russia? I seem to recall the US sold them a lot of damn wheat and other grains. Mass starvation can be easily held off? Since when? It still happens today.

The alternative to free market farming is not collective farming. Furthermore, free market farming is a disaster waiting to happen. Oh wait, its already a disaster in progress. The problem of the free market is that without subsidies it produces at a sub optimal rate. It grows only enough food that would get them that magical spot where the supply and demand curves meet. Sadly that means people are going to be left out in the cold because the price is to high. Furthermore, farmers will sell their food to whoever pays the most. In the United States for example, the people paying the most are not the consumers, it are biofuel companies. 60% of all corn produced in the US gets turned into biofuel. Great, but that means less food, which btw, also affects the supply and demand curve and prices go up.

Then there is of course the problem of speculation. Since we introduced more free market into the food sector, food prices have been going up like crazy, thanks to speculators on Wall Street who earn truckloads of cash by doing this. Great right? Well, not really that great if you live in Africa and now can't afford to feed your family because some rich dude on Wall Street saw fit to artificially inflate the price of food.

Finally there is of course the problem of companies like Monsanto who's business practices resemble that of some evil James Bond organization, forcing farmers to pay each year for using their seeds. Not much of a problem in the west but if you are an African farmer, that might be troublesome. And in any case, it drives up the price of food.

All in all, these practices result that while a small group of people get extremely rich, poor people in Africa are starving. And in case of a population of 12 billion people, if we want to feed them, we gotta use our food production capabilities to the limit if we want to put a decent amount of food on the table for everyone. That objective conflicts with the objectives of the free market and therefor the market must be made less free. Not by collectivization because indeed, that doesn't work. But subsidizing your farmer has already proven to result in over production, and at the same time the consumer doesn't have to pay a ridiculously high price in the super market.

WK's post with the world population map is interesting. Africa is increasing quite strongly, but I would expect that give the lack of education in poorer countries. All the eastern European states appear to be falling. It may be partly due to emigration, partly due to poverty, but also parents not wanting to bring up children in those oppressive environments. Russia is static, no suprise there, and Canada slightly ahead of the USA, when you might have thought the opposite.

I like the idea about getting paid not to have kids. You have more than two your tax rate goes up. Get fixed you get a tax reduction. I like that idea a lot. Can I get retroactive pay for my vasectomy:)

There is a flaw in that, because a family that can manage with two kids, who has a third, then has less money to feed an extra mouth. Then either the three kids all have less or the Social will make up the shortfall. Many people still think of the old cliche that two can live as cheaply as one, so a fourth of fifth child is less of a burden the more you have. Its meant to be a deterrent but could endup being a millstone. I like the idea of a state bonus for a vasectomy, say £1000, but these days most are reversible. And what happens if the wife/partner dies in an accident or illness, the husband/partner may in time choose to enter a new relationship. Then you are dragging sperm banks into the picture.

All ideas worth putting on the table for consideration, but there isn't one yet that is both foolproof and socially acceptable.

There are Water problems in CA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California

Maybe that there is theoretically enough land and technology to feed 11 or 12 billion, but is there enough water. Over thirty years ago there were predictions that the next major wars would be about water rights.

There are several problems in the US already that could be guides to what could happen, if it was not in the US, but were countries with already strained relationships.

You are correct on the water problems. we have several states laying claim for water rights. Florida and Georgia. The Great lake states have asserted there claim to the water rights from being sent down south to a neighboring state. Out west I cant recall off hand what states are fighting over water rights. It will get nasty if a severe drought hits in the US. I cant even think what will happen if another country tries to horn in.

What if your northern neighbour decides they don't like you taking water from there half of the Great lakes?

They are one half of the great lakes agreement. They dont like sending water out of the system either.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Maybe that there is theoretically enough land and technology to feed 11 or 12 billion, but is there enough water. Over thirty years ago there were predictions that the next major wars would be about water rights.

There are several problems in the US already that could be guides to what could happen, if it was not in the US, but were countries with already strained relationships.

You are correct on the water problems. we have several states laying claim for water rights. Florida and Georgia. The Great lake states have asserted there claim to the water rights from being sent down south to a neighboring state. Out west I cant recall off hand what states are fighting over water rights. It will get nasty if a severe drought hits in the US. I cant even think what will happen if another country tries to horn in.

What if your northern neighbour decides they don't like you taking water from there half of the Great lakes?

Maybe that there is theoretically enough land and technology to feed 11 or 12 billion, but is there enough water. Over thirty years ago there were predictions that the next major wars would be about water rights.

There are several problems in the US already that could be guides to what could happen, if it was not in the US, but were countries with already strained relationships.

You are correct on the water problems. we have several states laying claim for water rights. Florida and Georgia. The Great lake states have asserted there claim to the water rights from being sent down south to a neighboring state. Out west I cant recall off hand what states are fighting over water rights. It will get nasty if a severe drought hits in the US. I cant even think what will happen if another country tries to horn in.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Maybe that there is theoretically enough land and technology to feed 11 or 12 billion, but is there enough water. Over thirty years ago there were predictions that the next major wars would be about water rights.

There are several problems in the US already that could be guides to what could happen, if it was not in the US, but were countries with already strained relationships.

I can't see that happening either Simon. The honest fact is that we cannot stop the human race breeding.

You can try to ask them not to
You can try to make them not to

But human nature says they will anyway. And it is true the the poorer nations will probably be a bigger problem than the richer ones. So, at the end of the day, what does the world do about it? I haven't got an answer, has anyone else?

Yeah, that graph covers 2000 years of human growth rates so it appears exponential. Current predictions show that human population will stop growing after 2050. On top of that, this world can easily sustain a population of 11 billion people. Obviously, we may have to make certain changes in our food production (like not leave it to the free market) and the way we use our space. But mass starvation can easily be held off. Along with advances in technology we can probably increase the amount of food (cloned meat anyone?) decrease the amount of waste, and if you are a real optimist, perhaps even reduce the need for food to a minimum (digitized personalities living in cyberspace!). Technology can save us.

Take farming out of the free market? Are you joking? How did those collective farms work out for Russia? I seem to recall the US sold them a lot of damn wheat and other grains. Mass starvation can be easily held off? Since when? It still happens today.

I like the idea about getting paid not to have kids. You have more than two your tax rate goes up. Get fixed you get a tax reduction. I like that idea a lot. Can I get retroactive pay for my vasectomy:)

---

[/quote]

Old James