73 replies to this topic

[Skötkonung]

There is starvation going on in many parts of the world now and those who aren't starving are often living in filth, do not have enough clean water and or have to work up to 12 hours a day to survive. This is living?

This is a political issue. There's enough food to feed everyone. The lack of water is due to a lack of infrastructure, not a shortage of water.

Food is used as a weapon to subjugate people in some countries, increasing production will do nothing in that case.

There are drinking water shortages, and diverting water from one region to another causes massive environmental havoc. Just look at the Colorado river or the aquifers in the Midwest (more example of annual mono-crops based on non-renewable resources).

The water crisis can be broken down as such:
1.) Inadequate access to safe drinking water for about 884 million people [source]
2.) Inadequate access to water for sanitation and waste disposal for 2.5 billion people [source]
3.) Groundwater overdrafting (excessive use) leading to diminished agricultural yields [source]
4.) Overuse and pollution of water resources harming biodiversity
5.) Regional conflicts over scarce water resources sometimes resulting in warfare

And in light of all these unsolved problems, we still want to increase population?

Edited by Skötkonung, 27 May 2010 - 07:14 PM.

[rwac]

...

None of these things you mention are fundamental limits on water.
Fresh water is fundamentally a renewable resource, and it's a question of proper water management.

Current agricultural subsidies are definitely contributing to the problem though.

Edited by rwac, 27 May 2010 - 07:22 PM.

[Skötkonung]

...

None of these things you mention are fundamental limits on water.
Fresh water is fundamentally a renewable resource, and it's a question of proper water management.

Current agricultural subsidies are definitely contributing to the problem though.

Umm, yeah it does.. Large portions of the human population are dependent on non-renewable aquifers. Fresh water from streams and lakes are extremely finite and can only support so much population / agriculture with current technologies. Freshwater can only be renewed through the process of the water cycle. However, if more freshwater is consumed through human activities than is restored by nature, the result is that the quantity of freshwater available in lakes, rivers, dams and underground waters is reduced which can cause serious damage to the surrounding environment.

At the present, we don't have desalination technology that doesn't produce massive waste and isn't prohibitively energy intensive. When you combine all of the above with water pollution and subsequent eutrophication, you see that freshwater is a finite resource.

Edited by Skötkonung, 27 May 2010 - 07:35 PM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Umm, yeah it does.. Large portions of the human population are dependent on non-renewable aquifers. Fresh water from streams and lakes are extremely finite and can only support so much population / agriculture with current technologies. Freshwater can only be renewed through the process of the water cycle. However, if more freshwater is consumed through human activities than is restored by nature, the result is that the quantity of freshwater available in lakes, rivers, dams and underground waters is reduced which can cause serious damage to the surrounding environment.

At the present, we don't have desalination technology that doesn't produce massive waste and isn't prohibitively energy intensive. When you combine all of the above with water pollution and subsequent eutrophication, you see that freshwater is a finite resource.

Desalination technology is improving though, and renewable energy could power desalination plants. As the aquifers deplete, desalination will become more cost competitive, as will other options like piping water longer distances. Supply and demand will solve the problem.

We are living on a giant blue ball that is 70 percent water. Water is not scarce. Nor does water actually disappear after it is used. We can learn to reuse it more efficiently and reduce our usage where possible.

Of course we should have public water facilities and/or make sure people have enough money to afford water. Though that is a side argument.

Edited by progressive, 27 May 2010 - 08:00 PM.

[hypnotoad]

Letting women decide how many kids to have is a big mistake. They all want to pump out the brats to no end. Let the men make the decisions and things will be fine.

That is an empirically based observation ?

Birthrates in all first-world nations are dropping. The total fertility rate of every country drops the more "western" and advanced it becomes. According to the CIA factbook on world demographics, the only nations with increasing populations are second and third world, with mainly Muslim populations. At some point in this century, they too will become more modern and their birth rates will likely decline. Statistically, people who live longer healthier lives with access to the modern gadgets (internet, cell phones, TVs, video-games, blackberries, designer-clothes etc) minimal religious influence, equal and unfettered career choices, and all the misc. accompanying values of a modern nation invariably decide to wait a long time to have kids, have fewer kids, or have no kids at all.

For example, here in America overall TFR is barely breaking even, and that is due to the massive amounts of illegal immigration we have. Immigrants tend to have more children at first, but eventually they become more integrated with the American lifestyle their children have less children and so on. My wife and I don't want kids, neither do most of my friends (in their 30s). Europe is in the same situation.

IMO, the global population problem trend will solve itself by mid-century as even the most backward and primitive world populations eventually step into the 21st century. By the end of the century I'm convinced world populations will be in decline.

Edited by hypnotoad, 27 May 2010 - 08:11 PM.

[kismet]

I am not sure if the mods are with me, but, guys, could you keep out the ecological, politicial, ethical and philosophical discussion of this forum? Or, alternatively, and perhaps preferably could you keep it separate from the life extension science but within the same forum if you wish? (can a mod split?)

I do not have the slightest clue what the last few posts have to do with the merits of wheat as a food for us personally. While I appreciate your concerns about sustainability, etc, I do not want to waste my time reading that while looking for longevity science and ways to contribute to this endeavor. This just increases the noise:information ratio for those who want to talk about wheat and its nutritional value.

Edited by kismet, 27 May 2010 - 08:07 PM.

[Skötkonung]

Umm, yeah it does.. Large portions of the human population are dependent on non-renewable aquifers. Fresh water from streams and lakes are extremely finite and can only support so much population / agriculture with current technologies. Freshwater can only be renewed through the process of the water cycle. However, if more freshwater is consumed through human activities than is restored by nature, the result is that the quantity of freshwater available in lakes, rivers, dams and underground waters is reduced which can cause serious damage to the surrounding environment.

At the present, we don't have desalination technology that doesn't produce massive waste and isn't prohibitively energy intensive. When you combine all of the above with water pollution and subsequent eutrophication, you see that freshwater is a finite resource.

Desalination technology is improving though, and renewable energy could power desalination plants. As the aquifers deplete, desalination will become more cost competitive, as will other options like piping water longer distances. Supply and demand will solve the problem.

We are living on a giant blue ball that is 70 percent water. Water is not scarce. Nor does water actually disappear after it is used. We can learn to reuse it more efficiently.

Of course we should have public water facilities and/or make sure people have enough money to afford water. Though that is a side argument.

You're arguing based on speculation, not evidence. Yeah it would be great if we have super efficient fusion powered desalination operations. It would also be great if we had nano-technology to construct any food we like ala Star Trek. But lets be realistic: significant energy generation by truly renewable technology is far away, it may be cost prohibitive when it arrives, it have unconsidered drawbacks (new forms of pollution, environmental destruction), and if today's social strata is evidence at all it will probably not be widely deployed throughout the world (undeveloped and overpopulated nations where they are needed).

[hypnotoad]

Yep.. getting way off topic. But it's still an interesting side discussion.

Edited by hypnotoad, 27 May 2010 - 08:11 PM.

[adamh]

There is starvation going on in many parts of the world now and those who aren't starving are often living in filth, do not have enough clean water and or have to work up to 12 hours a day to survive. This is living?

This is a political issue. There's enough food to feed everyone. The lack of water is due to a lack of infrastructure, not a shortage of water.

Food is used as a weapon to subjugate people in some countries, increasing production will do nothing in that case.

"There's enough food to feed everyone."

You mean if we could keep it from being eaten by vermin, destroyed by mold, bacteria and so on? Yes, we have plenty of food soon as the good fairy grants our wishes.

"The lack of water is due to a lack of infrastructure, not a shortage of water."

No problem then? Just put that on our wish list.

We can stop worrying folks, there are no shortages. Repeat, there are no shortages. If you are starving it's your own fault. No need for population control, the good fairy will provide.

[edit]

I didn't see the posts complaining about off topic discussion when I made this last post. My apologies to those offended. However, discussing wheat is incomplete if you don't discuss how to grow it and the resources needed vs other foods. That leads to the present discussion. Perhaps we could save it for another thread? Wouldn't want kismet to be offended.

Edited by adamh, 27 May 2010 - 08:20 PM.

[health_nutty]

Back to the original topic. I think there is enough evidence for me to avoid wheat (thanks Duke). The upside of eating wheat is not that great and the downside looks pretty bad. I didn't eat much wheat anyways, but I'm going to be more careful in avoiding it.

[Alex Libman]

"Back to the original topic" resulted in crickets chirping, so I'm going to rant about population growth some more.

The water crisis can be broken down as such:
1.) Inadequate access to safe drinking water for about 884 million people [source]
2.) Inadequate access to water for sanitation and waste disposal for 2.5 billion people [source]
3.) Groundwater overdrafting (excessive use) leading to diminished agricultural yields [source]
4.) Overuse and pollution of water resources harming biodiversity
5.) Regional conflicts over scarce water resources sometimes resulting in warfare

Like rwac said, this isn't a problem of there not being enough water in the universe, and not a problem of there not being enough energy to desalinate and transport it where it is needed, but a problem of third world government failure, including the failure to let the private sector come in to build up the economy (sweatshops and all) in order to make development economically sustainable. No one wants to invest even in pipes when they will inevitably be stolen by some tin-pot commie dictator to shortsightedly strengthen his grip on power!

And in light of all these unsolved problems, we still want to increase population?

Having shrinking and aging population is a much bigger problem then most people can imagine. The closest example we have is Japan after about 1990, but they've actually held up remarkably well by moving their factories to other countries (i.e. importing labor), implementing labor-saving automation, and so forth. Automation / robotization and other means of increasing individual productivity are a very good thing, but they won't be enough, and when the whole world starts experiencing population shrinkage there'll be no place from which to import labor! A rise in labor costs means skyrocketing prices, especially for food. An aging population means less innovation, lower productivity, and medical costs grow while the tax base shrinks. A society of old people that can barely afford food and medicine is not a pretty sight! And then you have the dysgenic effect: while most people are having 0 or 1 child, the religious nuts will continue having kids by the dozen!

[DukeNukem]

I think it is silly to even discuss whether "wheat" is good or bad. You can extract white flour out of wheat and make a high-glycemic low-protein food. (Bad.) Or you can extract the gluten out of wheat and make a high-protein low-glycemic food. (Good.) Arguing over the goodness of food based on its origins rather than its nutritional makeup is getting close to a faith-based diet.

Whole wheat is bad for you. Boom. End of story.

Now, to say that certain molecules from wheat are not bad for you, that's an entirely different thread. But, usually, when it comes to diet talk, we stick with foods as normally prepared, in this case, processed or whole wheat. And, as made clear in my topic starter, people too often believe whole wheat is healthy.

BTW, why do you believe that gluten is good??? It's hard to find anyone outside of conventional circles who still believes gluten is healthy. I've been preaching that gluten is the enemy for years. Basically, the three foodstuffs all humans should avoid, as I've said dozens of times: gluten, fructose, processed vegetable oils.

[e Volution]

Gluten: What You Don't Know Might Kill You

"A review paper in The New England Journal of Medicine listed 55 "diseases" that can be caused by eating gluten. (iv) These include osteoporosis, irritable bowel disease, inflammatory bowel disease, anemia, cancer, fatigue, canker sores, (v) and rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and almost all other autoimmune diseases. Gluten is also linked to many psychiatric (vi) and neurological diseases, including anxiety, depression, (vii) schizophrenia, (viii) dementia, (ix) migraines, epilepsy, and neuropathy (nerve damage). (x) It has also been linked to autism.(ix)"

(iv) Farrell RJ, Kelly CP. Celiac sprue. N Engl J Med. 2002 Jan 17;346(3):180-8. Review.
(v) Sedghizadeh PP, Shuler CF, Allen CM, Beck FM, Kalmar JR. Celiac disease and recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a report and review of the literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;94(4):474-478.
(vi) Margutti P, Delunardo F, Ortona E. Autoantibodies associated with psychiatric disorders. Curr Neurovasc Res. 2006 May;3(2):149-57. Review.
(vii) Ludvigsson JF, Reutfors J, Osby U, Ekbom A, Montgomery SM. Coeliac disease and risk of mood disorders--a general population-based cohort study. J Affect Disord. 2007 Apr;99(1-3):117-26. Epub 2006 Oct 6.
(viii) Ludvigsson JF, Osby U, Ekbom A, Montgomery SM. Coeliac disease and risk of schizophrenia and other psychosis: a general population cohort study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2007 Feb;42(2):179-85.
(ix) Hu WT, Murray JA, Greenaway MC, Parisi JE, Josephs KA. Cognitive impairment and celiac disease. Arch Neurol. 2006 Oct;63(10):1440-6.
(x) Bushara KO. Neurologic presentation of celiac disease. Gastroenterology. 2005 Apr;128(4 Suppl 1):S92-7. Review.
(xi) Millward C, Ferriter M, Calver S, Connell-Jones G. Gluten- and casein-free diets for autistic spectrum disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD003498. Review.
(xii) Green PH, Jabri B. Coeliac disease. Lancet. 2003 Aug 2;362(9381):383-91. Review.

[oehaut]

"A review paper in The New England Journal of Medicine listed 55 "diseases" that can be caused by eating gluten. (iv) These include osteoporosis, irritable bowel disease, inflammatory bowel disease, anemia, cancer, fatigue, canker sores, (v) and rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and almost all other autoimmune diseases. Gluten is also linked to many psychiatric (vi) and neurological diseases, including anxiety, depression, (vii) schizophrenia, (viii) dementia, (ix) migraines, epilepsy, and neuropathy (nerve damage). (x) It has also been linked to autism.(ix)"

(iv) Farrell RJ, Kelly CP. Celiac sprue. N Engl J Med. 2002 Jan 17;346(3):180-8. Review.
(v) Sedghizadeh PP, Shuler CF, Allen CM, Beck FM, Kalmar JR. Celiac disease and recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a report and review of the literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;94(4):474-478.
(vi) Margutti P, Delunardo F, Ortona E. Autoantibodies associated with psychiatric disorders. Curr Neurovasc Res. 2006 May;3(2):149-57. Review.
(vii) Ludvigsson JF, Reutfors J, Osby U, Ekbom A, Montgomery SM. Coeliac disease and risk of mood disorders--a general population-based cohort study. J Affect Disord. 2007 Apr;99(1-3):117-26. Epub 2006 Oct 6.
(viii) Ludvigsson JF, Osby U, Ekbom A, Montgomery SM. Coeliac disease and risk of schizophrenia and other psychosis: a general population cohort study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2007 Feb;42(2):179-85.
(ix) Hu WT, Murray JA, Greenaway MC, Parisi JE, Josephs KA. Cognitive impairment and celiac disease. Arch Neurol. 2006 Oct;63(10):1440-6.
(x) Bushara KO. Neurologic presentation of celiac disease. Gastroenterology. 2005 Apr;128(4 Suppl 1):S92-7. Review.
(xi) Millward C, Ferriter M, Calver S, Connell-Jones G. Gluten- and casein-free diets for autistic spectrum disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD003498. Review.
(xii) Green PH, Jabri B. Coeliac disease. Lancet. 2003 Aug 2;362(9381):383-91. Review.

Do you have coeliac disease? If not, applying this to healthy folks is junk science.

Edited by oehaut, 01 June 2010 - 12:47 PM.