Population Growth and Food

I think Mathus was right, but it may take a while for his philosophy to become aknowledged by the modern world. His postulate that "the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence" is apparent today in Africa. Africa has one of the fastest growing populations with proportionatly smallest amount of resources in the world. The African continent has a desert that is the size of the United States, this leaves for a smaller area that can be used for agriculture. The starving people in Africa is proof that the power of population is greater than the earth's power to produce food.

I do not think that limiting births like China is a viable option for the United States. America is land of the free. Limiting births is a way of limiting freedom, and would not go over well in America. A more realistic way that we can control the escalating population is by developing cheaper and more effective birth control techniques. By offering birth control pills or other methods, the population won't feel repressed. If a population feels repressed other problems besides hunger will become apparent. Passively offering cheaper birth control won't put the desired cap on population, but it will preserve our freedom.

We should also start teaching sex education more in depth. We should be teaching in detail about each and every repercussion that comes from having sex. As of now, the chance of having a child is always there unless you are barren. We should teach this to the public, starting with middleschoolers. If teens know what the chances are that they will have a child, maybe they won't engage in as much sexual intercourse. In addition to adding to the population, most of these children born to teen mothers are born into a broken family and poverty. We should therefore teach the respectfulness of abstinence and the proper techniques of birth control.

My proposed solutions of birth control and knowledge won't stop our population problem, but it may slow it down fast enough for us to really think about it. If the world really thinks about the earth not being able to support an infinite population, maybe people will decide on their own that it is not so wise to have seven children.

Federal Lands Grazing

I think that we should allow grazing of domestic animals on public lands. Although there are many potentially negative aspects, they are easily overtaken by the positive ones. Environmentalists claim that by allowing domestic animals to graze freely in wild habitat, the natural ecosytems will be destroyed in that area (http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/). This is a valid point that should be considered. Another point is often made that leasing public land is cheaper that renting private land (http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range456/hot-topics/grazing-fees.htm). This creates dicrepencies, so should also be dealt with. The last main point I would like to make is the potential amount of energy in the form of meat that can be harnessed by utilizing public grazing land.

Environmentalists have brought up the valid point that natural ecosysytems can be detroyed by the over-grazing of public livestock. Plant life that wild grazing animals depend on could potentially be consumed by domestic livestock. This could lead to the malnutrition and possible starvation of these native animals. Without the herbavores in an ecosytem, the carnivores also cannot survive. Without primary producers (grasses, trees, etc.) the entire ecosystem will fall apart. Erosion can also become a problem where large domestic livestock are grazing. Where the soil is degraded less plant life is able to take root, this leads to less food for both domestic and the indigenous animals. In small numbers, domestic livestock does not pose a large threat. But when a certain area is overgrazed, the natural ecosystem cannot support the numbers of both the large domestic and native animals. Natural ecosytems should be evaluated by professionals to calculate the number of domestic animals that can be added to an ecosystem without harming the natural environment.

It is cheaper to lease public grazing land than to lease private land. The pricing should stay this way for it is fair in many ways. When someone leases public land for grazing they are just leasing the rights to graze their animals on that land. When someone leases private land, that deal is between the owner and the renter.In the private arena, the renter can make a personalized deal with the owner, while public deals are set. With public lands there are no fences in many cases, and it becomes the livestocks owner's responsibility to keep them contained. In private deals the area is often time fenced. In private deals there is almost always surveilance on the livestock, while with public the rancher takes on the added liability of having his livestock less secure and private. But public should be leased for a price. The revenue taken in can be used to fund the governments land management programs. These programs help to keep our lands in a sustainable form. We must keep our lands viable for a posterity.

The forest service controls 307 million acres (http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range456/hot-topics/grazing-fees.htm). It is hard to imagine that all of this land is being utilized by the indigenous grazing animals. American ranchers should be allowed to utilize the potential energy of this large amount of land. The grass that is living and dying without being eaten is a waste of potential energy. Instead of just being decomposed by a microorganism, that roughage can be eaten by a cow, that can in turn, be used for human consumption. Granted we should not overgraze the land that would lead to disastrous environmental affects, we should graze as much of this land as possible. We might have the possibility of opening up the organic meat market, and we may also lower the risks of wildfires.

With the overwhelming amount of potential energy in wild American, it would be irrational not to harness it. We should keep the wild in a natural state though. But there is a balance to be had. We can graze as many livestock as is healthy for that particular environment. This leads to a healthy relationship between man and wild.

Farm Subsidies

After reading the information on websites both for and against farm subsidies, I have decided that we need a new program that will support modern American agriculture. Farm subsidies were developed in the Great Depression era, almost eighty years ago. Since then, the world has changed, especially American agriculture. We are no longer the Jeffersonian vision of a family farmer with twenty acres solely living off the fat of the land. That vision died at least a century ago. Agriculture is now more of a bussiness than anything. An American farm-owner is probably more likely to be seen in a suit rather than overalls. The family farm has been morphed into a huge corporate money-making machine, that left most of its values in the dust. Farm subsidy money is largely being granted to rich corporations. The family farmer is practically extinct in America, why should taxpayers fund a program that was geared towards him? American farms may flourish if subsidies are reduced, but we do need a program that will protect them if the market becomes saturated or if a natural disaster strikes. This is why farm subsidies need to be changed or put to an end all together.

If subsidies are vanquished, it will lead to a free market, this may not be a bad thing. Capitalism, America's founding virtue, will be set free in the agriculture sector of the United States. Product quality will be the determing factor in whether the consumer purchases, rather price. Subsidized farmers have to conform to regulations, rather than produce their own amount of food. Competition amoung farmers will lower prices for the consumer, rather than government regulations.

But what if severe weather strikes, and diminishes our food supply in a free-trade style of agriculture? This is where farms need the government's support. The government should support farmers by offering them the resources needed to get back on their feet. The small portion of the huge amount of money used to subsidize farmers should be put into a mutual fund of some sort - invested back into our own economy. Then, when our farmers (our food supply) is in dire need, we will have the capital to fund their recovery. Some members of congress have already started looking into farm insurance (www.taxpayer.net/agriculture).

The government should also be concerned with agriculture if the market becomes saturated. If an overabundance of food becomes a problem for farmer's prices the government should buy up some of the extra food, thus giving the farmers a fair price for their crops.

But subsidies should not be done with altogether. President Bush signed a bill that limited subisdies by only giving to farmers whose income was under $200,000. But the Agricultural Commitee wants to set the cap at a ridiculous $1 million annual salary (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/wm1566.cfm). An annual salary cap must be set at a reasonable price - around the average American salary. This much needed cap keeps the rich farmers from recieving money that they do not need. But farmers do need the governments help in an uncertain world. But to constantly give to farmers who do not need the money is a waste of taxpayer's capital; capital that could be used to buy extra food.

The Diversity of Food

1. A. Amaranth, or edible pigweed would make an excellent staple crop. Its stalk and leaves are high in vitamins, and can also be used in many ways like hemp. Its flour or grains are high in protein and can easily find their way into vegetarian diets. It is an inexpensive crop that has been labeled a crop of the future for many reasons: it produces lots of fruit (seeds = grain), easily harvested, contains large amounts of amino acids, and is tolerant of tropical environments. Amaranth can also be used for dyes or ornamentally. B. Yacon roots, indigenous to South America can be eaten on the account that they are nutritious, sweet, and a good source of energy. Its stems and leaves contain about 15% protein. Yacon is also a good insulin producer, and has been prescribed to diabetes patients. Yacon could find its way into our diets by providing a natural alternative to artificial sweeteners.

2. Having such minimal diversity the human diet can have a number of ill effects on society. By only consuming three staple foods, we are fairly limited by them in our nutrient intake. If the staple foods in our diets are lacking nutrients, diseases may occur within the population. In addition to having an unvaried diet, famines can occur if the staple crop fails; like the Irish potato famine. If the crop that a society depends on fails, that society will also fail and people will die of starvation. If a society has a variety of staple crops they will have more of a chance to survive if one of the species of crops fails, and their diet will be more balanced as well. Having a varied cuisine also increases the joy and palatability of meals.
But having a minimal diversity in the human diet does have a positive implication upon society. Societies can base their diets around a known staple, and design many recipes that add in different foods that accent, and complete the nutritional needs of the population. The society can also focus on that one crop, and work on making it more productive.

3. The negative implication of the three staple crops (wheat, corn, rice) being annuals is that they need to be resown every year. This puts a yearly strain on the farmers. Crops that are perennials can become more productive over time but do take a while to get started, while annuals become highly productive almost immediately. Annuals also lack an extensive root system, so if struck with a drought they are more vulnerable than most perennials.
The positive implication about the three staple crops being annuals is that if the farmer plants his crops in a bad location one year, he can relocate the next year in more fertile soils. The annuals that are grown in one area drain the soil of specific nutrients in most situations. But growing annuals allows the farmer to replant his soil with a different variety of plant that can replenish the soil with much needed nutrients. In a process called crop rotation, farmers alternate crops that use up and put back different nutrients back into the soil. For example, corn takes a lot of nitrogen out of the soil while legumes put nitrogen back into the soil. Crop rotation cannot be done with perennials.