BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 10:54 AM

BTNG,
Thanks for the post about chocolate. I have forwarded the link to the people in my email contacts list, along with a link to some info about fair trade chocolate, so they can do something with any outrage they feel.

Man, I learn a lot on Mudcat!

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 09:32 PM

Actually, the world's poopulation isn't even a full billion. If its population is 7 billion, and one becomes an old poop at age 65, and 13% of the population is 65 or older, that's a poopulation of only 910 million.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: BTNG
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 05:29 PM

a couple of books worth reading on the chocolate industry are

The Chocolate Wars
by Deborah Cadbury (she of the family)

Bitter Chocolate
Investigating the Dark Side of the World's Most Seductive Sweet
by Carol Off

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 05:12 PM

999, the trouble is that the majority of folk in 'the West' have never been to a third world country, and haven't seen the crushing poverty there. They love their chocolate bars, and see no real connection between their treat and the way it's produced. I'm ashamed to say I was a bit like that, until I started to travel in West Africa, mainly off the beaten track and not to the usual tourist haunts. So any solution casually mooted by a Westerner is almost bound to be unworkable. Population control is not a simple issue, neither is sewage disposal. If the solution were easy, the problems would have been dealt with long ago.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 04:21 PM

Thanks, BTNG. I've seen that before, but I'm sure some folks won't have.

It's a heck of a situation, because good info regarding the cocoa and coffee trades is difficult to come by. About ten or so years back I worked in a school that prided itself on trying hard to address social justice issues in the community, province, country and abroad. I suggested at a staff meeting that we

1) take the chocolate bars out of the vending machine
2) use fair trade coffee in the staff room

Y'ever been inside a walk-in freezer? Sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: BTNG
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 03:54 PM

The slaves in Cote d'Ivoire who are used to grow and harvest chocolate make the product from there unpalatable and undrinkable to me.

Chocolate: The Bitter Truth

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 03:05 PM

Eliza, I appreciate your views very much because they are 'insider' views.

Some of the problem is of course the world trade in products like cocoa, coffee and certain fruits and meats.

The slaves in Cote d'Ivoire who are used to grow and harvest chocolate make the product from there unpalatable and undrinkable to me. I have had a personal boycott against many of the big names in chocolate since I became aware of the 'problem'. The same holds true with regard to coffee and fruit products from countries that suppress their populations. I know my personal boycott makes no difference on the world stage, but it makes a difference in my household.

I support 'certified' free trade products when they are available. They do cost a smidgen more, but I like to think I sleep better at night because of it. I also draw store managers' attention to the products and why I will not buy them in hopes some will start 'not buying the products' for retail sale. That's usually a lost cause, also. But as I said earlier, I feel I sleep better at night.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 02:14 PM

I'm fascinated by your interesting comments, 999. It's so easy for the West to 'find solutions', but unless one knows the lie of the land, these quick-fix answers don't work. Most Africans are willing to struggle til they drop, but they're battling against enormous odds. One well-meaning (and admirable) charity paid for a well to be drilled and pipes laid, so the women in a certain village no longer had to carry water for kilometres on their heads. Months later, they returned to service the equipment, and the menfolk had dug up all the pipes and sold them as scrap metal! The patient women were back on the road with their water pots on their heads. What can one do?
I know what you mean by bad roads. There are craters three feet deep all over Senegal roads, you have to detour through the bush to make any progress. Mud isn't a problem there, as it's a drought area, but in Ivory Coast, the 'roads' are a quagmire a lot of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 02:05 PM

True, Eliza. As an 'outsider' looking in, I recall when CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) was sending maps to schools all over Canada trying to present the problems of non-developed or developing countries in map form to give a clearer picture of the difficulties faced by people in places where even access to safe potable water was a luxury--what we seem to take as a matter of course.

Then there was the 'let us all hand out condoms' crew, and the 'let us all chip in to buy wheat' group. All well meaning, but basically unworkable for sociological reasons within the receiving countries.

A fire department I was on sent trainers to an African country to teach good practices to willing and brave but untrained firefighters. Sometimes the simple act of getting an engine (truck that hauls a bit of water and can pump it out through hoses to fight fires, sometimes called a pumper) to the fire ground was a nightmare of logistics because roads were not well maintained and traffic patterns were 'set' in what to us might seem like some sort of nightmare roll of the dice in design. In certain seasons, the fairly simple act of sucking water from a slough or water hole was near impossible because getting close enough involved slogging through mud which in itself was a dangerous endeavour, to say nothing of getting the truck itself stuck and thus rendered unavailable to do what it's meant to do: pump water.

Parachuted-in solutions don't work as well in reality as they do on paper.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 01:25 PM

999, you're right. But when one considers say, my husband's family... his parents, in their seventies, have 14 children and of those only ONE works, earning only a few bob a month. The others are either married (the women) and have loads of children to support, or live with mum & dad and contribute nothing to the cooking pot. There's only my husband who can help his parents out, and that's only because I send regular amounts to pay for their huge rice budget. These 'large numbers of children' can be more of a burden than security in old age!

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 07:03 PM

Part of the problem is that the countries being mentioned have no Old Age Pension (or whatever it's called where you're from). The only pension many people have in those countries is their children. Due to mortality rates, people try to have lots of kids. That is something the world has been aware of since at least the 1970s. Condoms and BC pills just don't cut it when they run head-on into established cultures with economic problems.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: BTNG
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 05:48 PM

"India quite probably will soon pass China to become the largest population, and while they appear to be concerned, they insist that any control/influence on population growth would be "too expensive."

what the Indian government means is "we tried issuing forms of birth control, and the people simply weren't interested"

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 04:23 PM

pdq -

I suspected it might be something like that, but didn't have numbers to make a good guess. Thanks for the explanation.

It might be better to compare arable land areas for some purposes; but those numbers would probably be difficult to dig out. Of course urban areas don't need to be capable of cultivation, but the areas that aren't productive seem mostly to be subject to objectionable features people wouldn't much want to live with.

John

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: pdq
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 04:00 PM

My post was LAND area expressed in SQUARE MILES.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 03:55 PM

pdq - Your numbers are nicely rounded off, and the columns are quite straight, but I have no idea what numbers you're citing, how you got them, or what "ranking" you're using. Explanation?

The U.N. estimates that baby No. 8 Billion will take its first breath around 2025. According to the organization's 2010 population report, Baby 9 Billion will show up shortly before 2050, and the world will welcome its 10 billionth person by 2100.

Most of the growth will be in high-fertility countries such as those in sub-Saharan Africa: The population in these areas is likely to triple.

Meanwhile, intermediate-fertility countries such as the U.S., Mexico and India will grow by 26 percent, and low-fertility regions such as Europe will actually shrink by 20 percent.

A breakdown of populations in the "top ten countries" from US Census Bureau estimates, which differ some from the UN numbers, gives 2011 populations:

  China (mainland only)  1,336,718,015
  India                  1,189,172,906
  US                       313,232,044
  Indonesia                245,613,043
  Brazil                   203,429,773
  Pakistan                 187,342,721 
  Bangladesh               158,570,535
  Nigeria                  155,215,573
  Russia                   138,739,892
  Japan                    126,475,664

China is one of a very few countries with specific policies on population growth, and although their population is still rising, they predict the growth will slow and then decline, with the goal of having a 2050 population no larger than the current 2011 number.

India quite probably will soon pass China to become the largest population, and while they appear to be concerned, they insist that any control/influence on population growth would be "too expensive."

Russian population has been shrinking for some years how - apparently not on purpose.

John

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: pdq
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 11:43 AM

I rounded-off these numbers and put China ahead of the United States for several reasons, such as the fact that the U. S. continental shelf is included but is under water. China occupies several tertories and, as China is consistent, ain't ever giving them back.

1.         Russia                      6,600,000
2.         Canada                     3,900,000
3.         China                        3,705,000
4.         United States            3,700,000
5.         Brazil                        3,300,000
6.         Australia                  3,000,000
7.         India                         1,300,000
8.         Argentina                  1,000,000

Note that two are already seriously over-populated, four have very little arable land, leaving the United States (and possibly Argentina and Canada) as the choice targets for immigrants.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: BTNG
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 11:18 AM

(about 7 billion, no?) That's what the UN is saying, yes.....

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 11:05 AM

IF the US has 312.5 million people and also has 4.5% of the world's population, it seems reasonable that 1% of the world's population would equal 69444444.44, and the whole equal 6944444444 (about 7 billion, no?).


A

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 10:52 AM

Bill, we had some idiot say that about the Arctic tundra. From a plane it's all so BEAUTIFUL to look at. It's also one of the more unforgiving and harsh landscapes on the planet in terms of survival. Carrying capacity? Not much.

"Only a few species live in this difficult environment. The food chains are short, and vulnerable to stresses. Permafrost under the temporarily thawed ground makes water drainage impossible, so there are many small lakes and puddles, and much of the ground is soggy. When all the water freezes it becomes unavailable to life forms, and so creates a sort of cold drought in which animals and plants may die of thirst. The detritus eaters, bacteria, fungi, and tiny soil organisms, work very slowly because the cold temperatures slow down chemical reactions. Available nutrients in the soil are therefore scarce, even though undigested material lies on the surface of the ground.

    Plants in this biome are small, perhaps four inches high. They form little cushions or mats that lie closely on the ground. The albedo of the plants is less than that of the surrounding soil, which lets them absorb a little more of the solar heat. The ground is a little warmer than the air, so the plants stay as close to the ground as possible. Some of them have little hairs on their stems to hold warmer air as the cold winds blow. The vegetation consists of grasses, wild flowers, sedges, mosses, dwarf willows, and lichens. Many of the plants are perennials so that they can store food from season to season. Most can reproduce vegetatively from underground shoots, as sudden freezing storms can occur at any time, and make seed production a gamble.

    The musk oxen eat the plants, but their predators do not live in this biome. The musk oxen reproduce slowly, and the availability of vegetation limits the size of their herds. They are driven toward the predators when food becomes scarce.

    The lemmings and the foxes are linked: more lemmings lead to more foxes, and more foxes lead to fewer lemmings. Their numbers fluctuate, but stay within the carrying capacity of the vegetation. When there are too few lemmings, the foxes starve.

    The snowy owl also hunts the lemmings. Snowy owls will leave the area when lemmings become scarce, and many do not return, but are killed by predators outside the tundra.

    Some parts of the tundra have additional animals: seasonally migrating birds, arctic mice, snowshoe hares, voles, and ptarmigans. Some areas even have migrating reindeer or caribou. The population dynamics remain carefully balanced, however. The plant communities are fragile, and the availability of light, warmth, and nutrients places absolute limits on the growth possible."

The above is from a summation done by the publisher McGraw Hill for teachers of elementary grades in some parts of Canada. As you say, just doing the math don't mean much.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 10:28 AM

"...saying merrily that land wasn't an issue, as there'd be plenty to go round."

And wouldn't it be fun in France if we all lived there.

In the US a few years ago, Wally Hickel, former Governor of Alaska and at that time Sec. of Interior, also said "There's plenty of land. I just flew back to Wash. DC from Alaska, and I looked out and SAW it!"

Cute remarks like that serve to muddy the issue and distract from the problem of living in marginal areas with flooding, drought, and habitat for wild animals as issues.

I DO hope the BBC made it clear they were kidding....

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 07:18 AM

Well, the BBC touched on this last night, saying merrily that land wasn't an issue, as there'd be plenty to go round, for you could fit the whole 7 billion of us into France, alone...

Phew!

I was a bit worried until they came up with that one, being that we've tripled in size, number and dumbness since the 1950s alone.

Somehow though, I think Mother Nature will find a 'cure', even though it may be one that none will enjoy having to take..

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 07:06 AM

7 Population Milestones for 7 Billion People By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer, gives some numbers for those interested, with some chatty blather about what was going on in the world when the "n-billion" marks have been estimated to have occured.

John

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 05:53 AM

Although it's difficult to find good figures on where the population growth in the US has come from (without more effort than I want to put into the project) I've noticed a couple of articles that assert that the birth rate in the US has been below "maintenance" level for at least a few years. This means that fewer are born than die in any given year.

The reports quite probably are biased by recent increases in longevity, since reducing the outgo demands a lower input in order to maintain a constant level. People are living longer in the US than even a decade or two ago.

There are some doubts that increases in median age can continue to be sustained at the same level too far into the future, so that at some point the "excess population" represented by those who in past generations "should have died by now" begin to drop out. The expectation would be that with a stable median age, the current birth rate in the US is at least near a zero growth level, and quite possibly significantly lower than is realized, for those "born in the USA."

John

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Oct 11 - 04:29 AM

"...the issue is *sustainability.* "

Another issue is the way that governments and Big Business take legitimate concerns about the environment and subvert them to mask their usual environment destroying activities. For example, the British Government now routinely talks about "sustainable development" - when they really mean just plain old 'development' (i.e. concreting over as much of the world as possible for private gain).

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 11:35 PM

Saulgoldie says "...but...the issue is *sustainability.* "

In the context of the article cited, isn't it more about "pileability"?

Bobert wants a recount: The official estimate by the UN committe on population (whatever its real name is) is that on 31 May 2011 the world population will become three billion.

3,000,000,000 or 3x10⁹.

John

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 08:31 PM

I can find all sorts of data about the Hispanic % of the population, but nothing yet about immigration specifically. So many PDFs...so little time.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: BTNG
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 08:15 PM

current U.S population: 312,500,435

my source, you ask?

why it's the U.S. Census Bureau

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: BTNG
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 08:08 PM

there's always those who'll dispute....

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 08:06 PM

"Also, all population growth here since 1972 has been from immigration."

source? I have no doubt that immigration is a major part...but ALL? Since 72? Remember, some parts of society have a higher birth rate than others

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 07:31 PM

Sorry, John, but seein' as Sears don't put out those 600 page catalogs any more I been stockin' up on corncobs... Don't bother trying to find my stash... You won't find 'um but I'm good thru 2030...

BTW, I demand a recount!!! Me and the Wes Ginny Slide Rule have the world's population at a mere 6.8B and don't anticipate the big seven-oh until late 2012...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: pdq
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 07:27 PM

Just for the record, the United States has:

            4.5% of the world's population

            7% of the world's land mass

            produces 20% of the world's food

            enjoys 25% of the world's wealth

Also, all population growth here since 1972 has been from immigration. The American
people took the threat of over-population seriously and we reduuced our birth rate to
achieve Zero Population Growth by free will and not by government intervention.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 07:23 PM

I 'think' the optimum sustainable population (in which we could provide a 'decent' living for almost everyone) was at about 2-2 1/2 billion. At 4 billion we could cope, though with some problems. Anyone can read about the current levels and how it's affecting not only environment, but politics and culture.

Is there an answer? Sure...of sorts. We can't undo 'some' things (extinct species...etc.) but we could get back to the 2-3 billion level in a couple of generations.
I say 'could', but almost no one would agree to take the necessary steps. You think the metaphor "herding cats" sounds like trouble? Try a program of Universal Mandatory birth control involving random implants- some contraceptive, some not... for all 12 year old girls.....

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: BTNG
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 06:58 PM

Oh there will be denial, from the usual suspects I have no doubt, but I suspect that we passed the sustainability point a wee while ago

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 06:57 PM

I met Dr Erlich in Hershey, PA, back in the 1960s. He was warning about the problem then. Some of his predictions were way off, but others are coming true.

"What gradually dawned on me was that in all this, there was one overriding, eternal concern which, if not dealt with, would make all other solutions to various problems merely temporary band-aids."

It's too bad it ain't dawning on the whole world, Bill. We may be too late already, short of a mass killing of about 3 billion people.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 06:35 PM

I worked on a special project for the EPA back when it was brand-new, and my partner on that project just retired after 35 years as a high (GS-15 supervisor) at EPA. Our concern originally was to relate the various environmental problems to each other-- to gain some perspective about what was most important and how to even define the categories of problems.
With that beginning, I have followed the debate since 1969 (and read a lot even earlier...Rachael Carson, Paul Ehrlich...etc.) It soon became evident..(to me, anyway)... that there was a changing analysis and rating of serious problems, depending on advances in technology, unforeseen issues and 'popular causes of the moment' (often linked to some new book or celebrity). No surprise there.

   What gradually dawned on me was that in all this, there was one overriding, eternal concern which, if not dealt with, would make all other solutions to various problems merely temporary band-aids.
I mean, of course, population. IF we conquer various diseases, develop non-polluting energy, make amazing new advances in crop research, and find ways to recycle waste(including shit!), we still face the math that says the Earth will not support 157 billion people.

   Saulgoldie mentions *sustainability*. In our EPA project, we used the term "carrying capacity". We studied that regarding the Anasazi culture in Utah. When you have to carry food & other supplies & down wooden ladders and create villages on narrow ledges, you are limited in how many people can live there---even when weather and supplies are adequate. Same thing on small islands, as I mentioned before. Even when the fishing is good and you are lucky with storms, you can't over breed! There are 'natural controls' if the tribe doesn't have some cultural controls.
So... the Earth is simply one VERY big island whose limits are really hard to predict and visualize. We HAVE done wonders with agriculture and irrigation and such...but as in Jordan, there are limits showing up.
We gotta face it.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 06:29 PM

The population is moving beyond the plant's sustainability. If mankind was rational, steps would be taken to stop breeding.
Postponing the inevitable collapse by whatever means is not a solution.
China' one-child effort is a stop-gap; even if adopted by all, may still be too late.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 06:09 PM

Good link on the topic of human feces and safe uses for it (aside from slinging)

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: BTNG
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 05:12 PM

and another thread that showed promise is headed down hill

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: gnu
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 04:42 PM

"taste somewhat like beef"... I don't give a shit. I am BBQg a steak.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 04:18 PM

"Sometimes I despair - but I'm 63 now, so, soon after I've 'popped my clogs' someone else will have to sort 'it' out (or, more probably, stupidly succumb to 'it')."

Shimrod, I feel as you do (I'm 64), and what bothers me a great deal is the thought of my kids and their kids being left with the mess. Y'ain't alone.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 04:15 PM

DailyTech - Japanese Make "Delicious", Nourishing Steaks From ...

That is the article it's from Saul--you'll have to google it--, although The Onion IS the first site I visit when I turn on the computer each day. The Onion gives me a laugh and sometimes an outright guffaw.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: saulgoldie
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 03:56 PM

Triple 9, did you research that at all? It is a hoax. Something one might read on "The Onion," methinks.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 03:44 PM

I think we'll soon have to ask ourselves some hard and searching questions, such as: "Are we rational beings who can make wise choices? Or are we some sort of mindless plague organism which is presently infecting the biosphere?"

I've been talking recently with several groups of people who consider themselves to be 'Green'. What strikes me about them is that all of their thinking and actions are completely human centred; they appear to have no conception, whatsoever, about the rest of the biosphere and how it works and how they relate to it - apart from being aware of and 'concerned' about climate change, of course (until the next fashionable thing to be concerned about comes along). They talk (mainly talk) about solar panels, community allotments, rickshaws, re-cycling etc., etc., etc. I suspect that they really want something resembling 'business as usual' with trendy, home-knitted yoghurt and sesame seed shoes standing in for conspicuous consumption. If even 'greenies' are more interested in fashion than in facts and realities, then our species really is f***ed!

Sometimes I despair - but I'm 63 now, so, soon after I've 'popped my clogs' someone else will have to sort 'it' out (or, more probably, stupidly succumb to 'it').

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 03:42 PM

A serious look at shit.

'Mankind's food chain may become a loop

Mankind has come up with all sorts of ideas for new meat sources from cloned animals to chowing down on insects, but this idea may be the most outlandish yet.

The Tokyo Sewage service in Japan serves over 13 million people over approximately a 2,200 square kilometer area. It approached Mitsuyuki Ikeda, a researcher from the Okayama Laboratory, with an unusual problem -- it had too much "sewer mud" (also known as human excrement).

It turns out human excrement is a breeding ground for scores of bacteria. So Mr. Ikeda cooked up an unusual solution -- make food [video] out of the feces.

The first step is to cook the bacteria, killing them, and to extract their proteins via separation techniques according to Yahoo News. Soy protein is added to enhance the flavor. The meat mixture travels to a "reaction enhancer" (likely a chemical reactor of some sort) where it turns into a textured "meat" and is then extrude through an "exploder".

The delicious "steak" is even finished with red food color to give it a comforting hue. Mr. Ikeda claims that in initial testing people found the feces steak to taste somewhat like beef.

Mr. Ikeda is afraid the main obstacle to deploying excrement meat to the masses is the "psychological barrier." He states, "I admit that few people would be keen to eat it knowing its made of human excrement."

Indeed, the concept of "fake" meat alone is hard for some to swallow. Taco Bell was recently sued when diners discovered that its beef mixed "fake meat" filers with real meat.

How much would the "meat" cost? Mr. Ikeda comments, "As far as the cost is concerned, because at the moment it includes the cost of research our artificial meat is 10 to 20 times more expensive than normal meat. But once the research is complete and it's put on the market, we'll probably be able to price it at roughly the same level as normal meat."

The new "meat" is also healthier than traditional meat as it's an ideal mix of 63% proteins, 25% carbohydrates, 3% lipids and 9% minerals. The small fat content, in particular makes the feces steaks healthier than their animal counterpart.

The new meat would also cut down on the greenhouse gas emissions, which traditional livestock produce. In that regard it could even earn "carbon credits" helping its price to be cheaper than animal-derived meat.

The idea may sound crazy, but consider that Japan is no stranger to fine meat products. Its Kobe region beef is renowned by connoisseurs worldwide for it's delicious flavor.

And as the band Pink Floyd famously sang, "If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?!"'

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: saulgoldie
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 03:06 PM

I think we have been over this before, but...the issue is *sustainability.* When the world was younger, there were perhaps so many millions of humans. And they had a much smaller appetite for resources. Now there are a several thousand multiples of that number. And our appetites are also thousands of times what the earlier humans used. The earth simply cannot provide for us at this rate.

Water is a lurking crisis. Any minute now. It takes something like 3,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. Is that the best way to use this precious and limited resource? And that "miraculous" agriculture is based on petroleum. Is petroleum infinite? Yes, of course. There are dinosaurs dying and decaying as we speak to supply us with new petroleum. The seas are about 80% fished out. And so on...

For starters. With so many people and such out of balance resource demands, we are basically f***ed. We can slow down the process of our destruction, but the wheels are in motion, a big ole freight train going down the mountain, faster, faster. Nature and evolution will take care of the job since we have proven ourselves unable to do it.

Hava nice day.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: BTNG
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 02:56 PM

we'd have to actually work together to achieve that, and for many that's well nigh impossible

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 02:54 PM

I think the 7 billion milestone represents a really terrific opportunity to develop new and better ways to operate in communities.

We've only done a half-assed job of it so far.


A

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 01:54 PM

You're absolutely right, BTNG. Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: BTNG
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 01:39 PM

no one forced anyone to read any of this, now did they?

Subject: RE: BS: World Poopulation 7 Billion Next Week?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Oct 11 - 01:28 PM

I've taken shit seriously for years. The situation reminds me of a story I read decades ago--can't recall title or author--in which people had to find a way to deal with a similar situation. Wasn't about shit, per se, but rather about a company using raw materials and having all this garbage left over. Someone had the bright idea to find a use for the garbage and offer it for free to anyone wishing to start a business. Someone did and the problem in the story was solved.

Shit has minerals and other chemicals that are valuable. Why waste time mining for those minerals or fabricating them when they have already been pre-processed?

Shit has humourous potential also. GASP. Humour and shit in the same sentence?

Taoism: Shit happens.
Confucianism: Confucius say, "Shit happens."
Buddhism: If shit happens, it isn't really shit.
Zen Buddhism: Shit is, and is not.
Zen Buddhism #2: What is the sound of shit happening?
Hinduism: This shit has happened before.
Islam: If shit happens, it is the will of Allah.
Islam #2: If shit happens, kill the person responsible.
Islam #3: If shit happens, blame Israel.
Catholicism: If shit happens, you deserve it.
Protestantism: Let shit happen to someone else.
Presbyterian: This shit was bound to happen.
Episcopalian: It's not so bad if shit happens, as long as you serve the right wine with it.
Methodist: It's not so bad if shit happens, as long as you serve grape juice with it.

(The above can be found on the www. First saw it in pre-computer days. There are lots more 'religions' on the list, lest anyone of a particular persuasion feel left out. Just google it.)


I take some shit seriously, and other shit less seriously. I tend to decide which is which for myself. Have a nice day, all.