Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "2014: The Year Feminists Lost the Debate" video.

  1. maddkiller No, you are mistaken, and you hint at why in your response. The problem is not CAPACITY but DISTRIBUTION. There is plenty of food but it is not grown where it is needed because conditions in those places often does not lend itself to massive food growth. The reason that much money is invested into new farming methods, is because higher yields, enable even places with imperfect conditions to feed more  people. Furthermore, GM crops can be engineered to grow in places that would not normally sustain them. Another problem is the ECONOMICS of food growth. In the Philippines for instance, there was PLENTY of food, but demands for biofuel by a newly environmentally aware China and the west, meant that their staple food was worth more to the growers for fuel, than food. Britain is an example of a country that had plenty of arable land but gave it over to other purposes, to such an extent that Britain is no longer capable of sustaining itself. But, because we are a wealth nation, we trade off our wealth and import from other places. If push came to shove, our luxury and dairy industries could be converted back into arable land, as could that used across the planet for staples. You talk about California's dry season, and that illustrates m point perfectly, because only one of California's top ten crops (rice) could remotely be considered a staple crop, the rest are luxury foods - grapes, walnuts, almonds, lemons and apples. The real staple (corn)  in America are grown in states like Idaho, Nebraska, Iowa etc,  and wheat (Dakota, Kansas and Oklahoma). There have always been intermittent dry seasons - the Biblical story of Joseph was inspired by a supposed 7 year dry spell. As much as global warming may make parts of the planet less optimal for one crop, them make them good for others, and new areas additionally become useful. I don't know what the balance is there, but simply screaming "global warming" is as misleading as simply saying "we're all going to starve". I repeat, the problem is NOT the shortage of food, but where and how it's grown, and WHAT is grown. Furthermore, the politics of nations such as Zimbabwe, called the breadbasket of Africa until Robert Mugabwe started driving out white farmers, is also a factor. NONE of these are about global over-population, but of improper allocation of resources, inadequate political will, global growing trends, and more. There is PLENTY Of  food, but those who are starving cannot get to it because they are poor or politically powerless.
    6
  2. Ran Viz First of all you need to define what is meant by "too many people"  There are more than enough resources to feed the population of the planet There is more than enough land for everyone to live on comfortably Leadership and social order are completely scalable In no meaningful sense, are there "too many people" on the planet, and the population of most western nations is falling.
    3
  3. maddkiller You said "then most of where we grow our crops will be completely useless in the next 100 years " That's completely untrue. At MOST sea level is expected to rise 1.5 metres over the next 100 years, whereas the average height of the land is 840 meters! " but the evidence is clear" then present the EVIDENCE, not simply your opinion. You act as though I am a climate change denier, which I am not. But do you even know for certain that the majority of EXISTING crops on this planet do not grow BETTER in a slightly warmer climate? Given that plants respirate C02, more in the atmosphere might be better for them, not worse. And if some existing crops do suffer, do you know whether the STAPLE crops are amongst that group? Just think - all the staple crops: grains and rice, grow in the hottest parts of their countries, far inland. And why have you even MADE this conversation about climate change? I'll tell you why, because you had NOTHING to back up your claims that the planet was overpopulated, nor that there was insufficient food, so instead, you have to do the usual thing of running around waving your hands and claiming that the sky's metaphorically going to fall in. The FACTS as they stand, is that we have enough food and enough growing land to keep the whole planet comfortably well fed. Population is falling in western nations to such a degree that some of them fear the sustainability of their social security systems when old people outnumber the young. Even China,  the most populous nations on earth, has eased off enforcing it's single child policy. Even without that, the birth rate is only 1.5 children per family, so the population is FALLING. Education and economics changes population growth. As people become smarter, they no longer want their lives weighed down with loads of kids. Better agriculture, fairer distribution, and less politics could mean that NO-ONE on this planet ever goes to bed hungry. But instead, selfish scum (and this is something we DO agree on) would sooner acquire more wealth than they can possibly spend, whilst sacrificing the people that they are supposed to serve.
    3
  4. You fail at premise 1.
    1